May 22, 2018, 02:44:23 AM

Author Topic: 70-300mm IS due for update  (Read 22908 times)

Bruce 101

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2013, 03:06:11 PM »
The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost. 

Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm.  On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.
I think neuro hit the nail on the head here, much better IQ can be achieved with shorter FLs cropped to 300mm than the 70-300 IS, and also have the added benefit of good AF, build quality and overall handling.  Add to that the fact that we are discussing this lens against the likes of the 55-250mm and when you consider the price of all the lenses we're discussing, it is very clear that the current 70-300mm IS is overpriced:

LensYearMSRP     Retail    Used
70-210mm USM1990------$125-150
100-300mm USM1990------$125-150
55-250mm IS2007/2011   $300$265$125-150
Tamron 70-300 VC    2010$450$450$230-280
70-300mm IS2005$650$650$300-360
70-200mm L1999$710$680$475-525

The discontinued 1990 USM lenses (15 years older) offer similar IQ with better build quality and focusing for considerably less money.  Conversely, the 70-200L non-IS is slightly more expensive but is substantially better in all aspects.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to say the IQ on the non-L 70-300 is better than the L 70-300 or even better than the L 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

Most of us who like the lens (a lot) are just arguing against the statement that the non-L 70-300 IS is embarrassing or useless at 200mm to 300mm.

I can never suggest that someone is wrong when they submit evidence that a lens produced bad IQ for them. Clearly, any lens can produce bad IQ. And it's not necessarily because of the camera body, the ability of the photographer, improper choice of lens for a particular shot, wrong settings or maybe because the lens copy is poor. I do recognize that sometimes it's just a bad lens period.

But, for those of us who have produced fine shots edge to edge all the way out to 300mm with the 70-300 IS (non-L), I think it's useful for persons wanting to consider the lens to hear from us. We can and do get very good images with the lens. I cannot explain why you don't and others don't. And I am not fond of it for sports or action or wildlife. I am very fond of it for landscape and portraits and other still images. It's great. Sorry, but that's my experience. And I own and use a lot the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II as well.

I can create bad photos (and do) using good bodies and good lenses. I am not good at producing great photos from lousy lenses. The non-L 70-300 is a fine lens if you know how to use it and how not to use it.

One of the most hotly debated lens choice issues over the years involving two Canon lenses is the debate over which is the preferred lens - the non--L 70-300 IS or the L 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). But it's not an IQ argument. It's a "which do you prefer" argument. I can spend $30,000 on an SUV or $30,000 on a sedan. Which is the better vehicle? It's a crazy question. It depends on the user.

If you need IS or 200-300mm or a smaller lighter lens or a less conspicuous lens so you can get it into an NFL game (you can with the 70-300 - you can't here with the white, longer 70-200) - then get the Canon non-L 70-300 or the Tamron or the 55-250.

If you want somewhat better IQ, better AF and don't have a problem getting the long white lens into venues then by all means get the non-IS 70-200 f/4. It's a very nice lens.

If I did not already own the IS f/2.8 version of the 70-200, I might consider the non-IS 70-200 f/4. But, probably not. I'd get the IS version.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2013, 03:06:11 PM »

Ruined

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 796
Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2013, 07:59:57 PM »
Forget L-lenses: From the sample shots I've seen and MTF charts, I would not be surprised if the EF-S 55-250 STM outclasses the 70-300 IS USM Non-L across the board, with the exception of build quality. :P

ajfotofilmagem

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2214
Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2013, 08:29:39 PM »
Forget L-lenses: From the sample shots I've seen and MTF charts, I would not be surprised if the EF-S 55-250 STM outclasses the 70-300 IS USM Non-L across the board, with the exception of build quality. :P
I've had 55-250 (first version) and looked better picture quality than 70-300 (non L) at the long end. The STM version should be even better and faster focus.

GMCPhotographics

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2013, 04:36:51 AM »
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:

  Canon 70-300mm IS USM  Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR 
Focusing Design    Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM      Internal focus, FTM 
Focusing Motor  Micro USM, noisy, slow  Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast 
Stabilization  3 stops  4 stops 
Year  2005  2006 
MSRP  $650 US  $590 US 
Street Price  $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H  $420 US eBay / $587 B&H 

One could say that Canon did upgrade it by releasing the 70-300mm L, but that is in a whole different price bracket, and shouldn't be compared.  It would be like comparing the Canon vs. Nikon 28-300mm lenses; they are clearly in different classes.  How has Canon not updated this lens in the past 7 years?

I must say, I miss the fast, quiet and accurate focusing my old 100-300mm USM and 70-210mm USM lenses had; and they were small and light, too.  If either of those lenses had IS I would not have considered 'upgrading' to the 70-300mm.  I wish Canon would up date this lens to be on par with Nikon and stay in the same price bracket.

I also find it funny that Canon announced this lens alongside the crowd-pleaser 24-105mm L. 

By the way, I have used both, as I own the Canon and my dad owned the Nikon (on a D600).  The Nikon wins hands-down in overall feel, responsiveness, build quality, etc.

Save your money and buy a 70-300LIS, it's a fantastic lens and it'll be the last 70-300 you'll buy. It's far better than the 70-200 f4 LIS the 70-300 IS and the Nikon variant. Save patiently and get the best.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300mm IS due for update
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2013, 04:36:51 AM »