March 23, 2017, 08:51:43 AM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM  (Read 9680 times)

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1623
  • M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2017, 04:50:29 AM »
Why is it a great choice for photographers with already great lenses just because it's a good buy price-to-performance wise  :o?

That can be really useful for travel purposes. I don't usually take the best and biggest with me when I travel and it can be comforting to reduce the total weight and value of the equipment you carry depending on the destination. In this way I have a compliment of lenses that I consider my 'travel kit'. I choose 3 to 4 of these as I see best fit. Sometimes I will take an L lens as a primary but almost never a white lens.
5D3, 5D2, G5X, G16 | SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 28/2.8 IS, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/1.8 STM, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, T28-300 VC PZD, 70-300L IS, Ʃ150-600 OS HSM S

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2017, 04:50:29 AM »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1623
  • M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2017, 05:07:26 AM »
Pity about the image quality. It's not "bad" but was hoping it would be a noticeable improvement over the old model.
I suppose my ideal lens would be a 70-300 f/4 or similar (to fill the annoying gap I have with choosing a 70-200 or 100-400 lol)

 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x = 98-280/4
 70-200/2.8 + 2.0x = 140-400/5.6

  ;)
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 05:09:36 AM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, G5X, G16 | SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 28/2.8 IS, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/1.8 STM, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, T28-300 VC PZD, 70-300L IS, Ʃ150-600 OS HSM S

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2017, 06:36:57 AM »
as so often, canon did the bare minimum incremental update ... just enough to defend 70-300 IS II against cheaper thirdparty option - namely Tamron 70-300 VC. of course i would have preferred more IQ improvement rather than useless LCD gadget, but (stupid) Canon ... :-)

however ... EF 70-300 IS Mk. II provides a viable option for a (reasonably) lightweight, "all original Canon" (AF, IS, mount protocol), consumer/BUDGET dual-zoom FF kit: 6D + 24-105 (non L) + 70-300 IS II. Add 50/1.8 STM for low light and subject isolation if desired.

fully competitive with Nikon D610, 24-85, 70-300 VR (+ 50/1.8).

more capable kits are available, but not at entry level price point: around 2000 € using cash-back/discounts and smart shopping.

rfdesigner

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2017, 07:25:37 AM »
I use MF for framing, If I like what I see then I hit the BBAF, if things are happing really quickly I'll pop a shot off without AF.  I've also got the fine ground focus screen so I have a decent chance of manual focussing.

What I hate is picking up the camera, turning the MF ring and then realising I've got the 50 on there so it won't play...   it's also so much slower than my ringUSM lenses.

I won't pay more than £100 for a lens without full time manual focus on it..  not unless it offers something exceptional in other ways such as the 85 f1.2, but I'd still hate the FBW and bitch about it...   I certainly see it as a substantial negative point enough to let in a propper full time manual AF off brand lens.
6D, 30D, 383L+, 28f1.8, 50STM, 100f2.0, 5.5"f8 scope, 12"f5 scope.
Personal Gripe:   "I could care less about.." = there are things less important too me, this may be my most important thing.
"I couldn't care less about.." = this is the bottom of my list.. it is so unimportant.

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2017, 07:50:14 AM »
interesting. i come from the exactly opposite corner. i have not used manual focussing since my first AF SLR camera. i would be happy if Canon would launch a range of AF-only lenses. Decent IQ, as compact as possible, no focus ring, no mf gear, robust build, full wheathersealing, robo-assembled, low(er) price. ideally for a great FF mirrorless system. :-)


TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2484
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2017, 11:13:55 AM »
Canon's latest round of zooms (24-105L II, 70-300 IS II) seem to have been fairly underwhelming optically...and that is coming from Bryan, who is generally pretty kind to Canon products.  Not good.  The 16-35L III was optically pretty good, but is crippled by a very high price tag and a few annoying issues (vignette and fairly destructive distortion).

I haven't had my hands on the 24-105L II or 70-300 IS II, though I expect them within the next couple of weeks.  I'll draw my own conclusions, but Bryan's review of both these lenses has cooled my anticipation of them.
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

ExodistPhotography

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
  • Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
    • Joe's Photo & Video Channel
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »
Interesting review, but what I am seeing from my YouTube channels viewers is that this lens is actually sharper then the mark I and the Tamron SP 70-300mm both. So it could be they got a bad copy or didnt set the MFA before taking photos..

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »

ExodistPhotography

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
  • Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
    • Joe's Photo & Video Channel
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2017, 11:21:37 AM »
I haven't had my hands on the 24-105L II or 70-300 IS II, though I expect them within the next couple of weeks.  I'll draw my own conclusions, but Bryan's review of both these lenses has cooled my anticipation of them.

Will be waiting on those reviews Dustin ;-).

 I have been considering this lens. But 300mm is just a little to short for me. Think I will just save up for 100-400mm II L lens.

crashpc

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2017, 12:50:42 PM »
Interesting review, but what I am seeing from my YouTube channels viewers is that this lens is actually sharper then the mark I and the Tamron SP 70-300mm both. So it could be they got a bad copy or didnt set the MFA before taking photos..
I hope for exactly that.
Othewise It would be really silly move (Canon! :-)  )
Don´t want to get stuck with very good 55-250mm IS STM.

rrcphoto

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1454
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2017, 03:16:23 PM »
Why is it a great choice for photographers with already great lenses just because it's a good buy price-to-performance wise  :o?

because not everyone can afford or wants to buy a 70-300L or a 100-400L?
 ::)

jd7

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2017, 04:16:08 AM »
Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.
In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 1.4x mk II

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3193
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2017, 12:33:00 PM »
Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.
In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

You could be really disappointed if you think it will be up to the 70-300L. I've used that lens and the USM I non L version and it's like night and day at the longer end. The reviews of the version II are saying it's not that different from the I, and so I guess this is an example of where the-digital-picture crops can be misleading.

That shot of the M5 @ 300 on TDP review is just unacceptable at both f6.3 and 8 IMO. In the U.K. half a grand £ is a fair amount of money, hobby-wise, and my gripe is the fact that you can get an asp-c equivalent fov lens and body that will produce better IQ for the price of this lens. FF should be about better quality output surely ?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 02:12:35 PM by Sporgon »

jd7

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2017, 10:31:21 PM »
Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.
In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

You could be really disappointed if you think it will be up to the 70-300L. I've used that lens and the USM I non L version and it's like night and day at the longer end. The reviews of the version II are saying it's not that different from the I, and so I guess this is an example of where the-digital-picture crops can be misleading.

That shot of the M5 @ 300 on TDP review is just unacceptable at both f6.3 and 8 IMO. In the U.K. half a grand £ is a fair amount of money, hobby-wise, and my gripe is the fact that you can get an asp-c equivalent fov lens and body that will produce better IQ for the price of this lens. FF should be about better quality output surely ?

Agree FF should be about better IQ. There has to be some reason for carrying a larger and heavier camera! :) Regarding the shot of thre M5, is the problem it's not sharp or it's a DOF thing? I'm still viewing on a phone only, but it looks like the text on the front of the lens is pretty clear even wide open ...? I'm guessing the answer is no, and when I get to view on a bigger screen I will see what you are talking about in terms of the lens being soft.

I have considered something like an M + 55-200 as an alternative, and maybe that would be a better option ... or even a 135L and rely on cropping since I'd have no zoom. Anyway, guess I will worry about it more when I have a trip lined up.
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Sigma 35 1.4 Art | Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 EX | 1.4x mk II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2017, 10:31:21 PM »

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3193
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2017, 09:52:06 AM »
Quote from: jd7 link=topic=31645
Regarding the shot of thre M5, is the problem it's not sharp or it's a DOF thing? I'm still viewing on a phone only, but it looks like the text on the front of the lens is pretty clear even wide open ...? I'm guessing the answer is no, and when I get to view on a bigger screen I will see what you are talking about in terms of the lens being soft.

I was referring to the 49 at the bottom of the frame, there seems a fair jump in clarity between f5.6 and f11 even on the small size that it's being viewed at, which doesn't bode well for the full size image. However I guess a lot of these lenses will be used on crop cameras so this outer area won't be relevant.

The top of the lens letters are dead centre, and I seems to remember that the mk1 wasn't too bad wide open in the very centre - like the small spot meter area of the frame. Then it fell away badly. If using FF it's definitely better to stump up for a 70-300L, even if that means used IMO.

ajfotofilmagem

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2063
Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2017, 09:58:58 AM »
Let's look at the good side: ???

Canon replaced a "quite weak" 70-300, for another 70-300 "less bad", and this costs less than the previous ::) Now, Canon can compete on price with the Tamron 70-300VC, and the Sigma 70-300OS, and discontinue the terrible 75-300mm, and the overpriced 70-300DO. ;)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 12:36:34 PM by ajfotofilmagem »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2017, 09:58:58 AM »