70-300mm IS due for update

[Bruce 101]

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here. Does it compare favorably to the L version - of course not. And that's not what this discussion is about. You and another post seem to suggest the lens is a piece of trash - particularly from 200mm to 300m and around the edges, in the middle and everywhere else.

The original OP called it "embarrassing".

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

In low light or where lightning AF is needed, not so good.

Have you personally used it on a 5DIII or SL-1. I have. Extensively. It's quite good if you know when to use it, how to use it, etc.

Does it match anything about my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, but that's not what this discussion involves.

Here, unedited is what Roger says regarding the L version and why the consumer version (which allows for the purchase of more high quality lenses) is maybe a better use of the cash:

It [the L version is] a much better lens than the $500 consumer grade Canon 70-300 IS (which is a very good consumer zoom). However, if I were putting down my hard-earned cash (OK, maybe not so hard-earned, I make my living playing with photography toys all day), I’d buy the consumer zoom and spend the other $1,000 on a Canon 17-55mm IS or Canon 24-105mm – or just get a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS and blow $500 on groceries or something frivolous.

 

[Ruined]

I guess. And I guess Roger at Lens Rentals got a good copy - http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is

I trust you realize that you linked the 70-300L? While Roger does say that the 70-300 is 'a very good consumer zoom' (consumer being a key point), he also says the 70-300L 'puts it to shame,' optically and in other ways.

Lots of comments from 'real users,' including many in the POTN thread you linked, about the lens being soft at the long end, advice to be sure and stop down at the long end, and even so, statements like '300mm @ f/9 still could not produce crisp images.' The two copies of the 70-300 non-L that I tried were also noticeably soft from 200mm onward.

I'm glad you're happy with your copy of the 70-300, as I am sure many people are. There are also people who are happy with one of the 75-300 lenses. I notice you stated that the 70-300 isn't worth $600 (it's currently $650, BTW). While paying less than half of current retail doesn't affect the optics of a lens, it can affect one's perception of that lens' performance, and it certainly affects the perceived value. Personally, if budget was a limiting factor, I'd recommend the 55-250 STM for a crop body, and I'd suggest FF users beg or borrow the $60 to cover the difference to the 70-200mm f/4L (a difference which drops to $22 if you buy the ET-65B hood, not included with the 70-300).

I personally agree that the 70-300mm IS USM is not worth $649, though I paid $380 for a brand new copy and therefore I am satisfied with its performance. It *is* soft at 300mm and the 70-300mm L does destroy it. However, for under $400 prior to the release of the STM version the non-L was by far built the best and looked the best. I believe the STM version will likely outclass it optically but still be an inferior build quality.

Regarding the 70-300mm f4-5.6L vs 70-200 f4L, I believe they are for two different audiences yet in many ways I see the former as more useful than the latter.

70-300mm f4-5.6L
- Slower and a bit heavier BUT...
+extra 100mm of SHARP reach.
+easier to fit in the lens bag, as generally width is easier to accommodate than long length
+A nice complimentary lens to the 70-200 f/2.8 L, rather than one you'd want to replace due to extra reach and small size.
+A far higher IQ "travel lens" alternative to the 70-300 DO IS

70-200 f4L
+Faster @ constant F4 and a bit lighter BUT...
-100mm less reach. Try to add a TC and you have even longer length and slower lens than the 70-300L.
-longer length might make it a difficult fit in some bags
-If you already have the 70-200 F/2.8L, this lens is rather redundant compared to the 70-300L

If you don't have nor plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L ever than the 70-200 f4l is a better buy. But if you do have or plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L I can see how the more compact length and greater reach of the 70-300mm L may make it a nice lens to keep in a addition to the 70-200 F/2.8... But I think one would be less enticed to keep both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 due to the exact same range despite weight differences.

TO address the OP...:
Yes, I believe the NON-L 70-300mm is due for an update. While it is better optically and build wise than the old 55-250, it is unlikely to retain the optical edge over the 55-250mm STM and the autofocus will definitely be worse. Being that this lens has been available with rebates @ under $400 several times in the past few months, I believe Canon is going to retire it. It may not be replaced, though, as someone else mentioned the 70-300L may have actually been the replacement. For those that want something smaller and lighter than the 70-300L there are already options with the EF 70-300 DO IS and the EF-S 50-250 STM.

 

[Loswr]

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

I figured you knew you were linking a page that says the 70-300 non-L is good, rather than the page specifically about the 70-300 non-L, where he says it's put to shame by the L.

'With the right settings and the right light'? Sure - f/8-11 is a great equalizer, so is Sunny f/16. It would be nice to always shoot on sunny days or mainly static subjects, but that's not a luxury everyone has. Heck, even in low light like 150 lux, the 50/1.8 beats the 600/4 II - just ask DxOMark. :

 

[Bruce 101]

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

I figured you knew you were linking a page that says the 70-300 non-L is good, rather than the page specifically about the 70-300 non-L, where he says it's put to shame by the L.

Man, you keep wanting to compare the non-L to the L though no one else is biting on that discussion. I would certainly hope a lens costing twice as much would put the lesser lens to shame! If you want to start a thread on such a comparison, enjoy!

This from Lens Rentals page on the 70-300 non-L:

A much better lens than its predecessor (the 75-300), this is a small, easy-to-carry zoom with great range. The Image Stabilization makes handholding possible in almost all situations, and the images are nearly as sharp as those taken with “L” quality lenses

Well, you asked for it.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Re: 70-300mm IS

I picked one up a few months ago when PriceWatch said the price dropped to around $400 at one of the second tier online retailers. I figured for that price it would be a good backup or I could use it for rough outdoor situations where I did not want to risk my better lenses.

I wasn't too impressed with it on the 5D3, but a few weeks ago I took it to Portland International Raceway where there was a British Car Field Meet going on. I put in on my 7D to extend the reach and kept it at F8. Here is an example taken at 300mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200.

Full frame:

(some sharpening applied in LR)

I later switched to my 200 2.8 L and it was noticeably sharper. I used it wide open, but with a much faster shutter speed, which more than made up for the lack of stabilization.

My conclusion is that you get what you pay for!

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Sporgon]

Here's an example of what I mean. Shot at f8 - it would have been better at f11. 300mm and you can see it is very good in the very centre, but falls off to an unacceptable level in what is still only mid frame. This picture shows it blowing the whites, some thing that both the lenses tend to do. ( This was shot on FF).

 

[luckydude]

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm.

Amen. I think this is one of Canon's sleeper lenses (and I own 8 L lenses and a pile of non-L). I don't use mine any more because I mostly shoot primes these days, but I used it a lot back in the day. All these are w/ that
lens:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/elkhorn_slough

In particular look at

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/elkhorn_slough/8.html

and if you want to pixel peep click on the pic to get the full size original. Hand held, from a canoe, pretty sharp.

 

[Bruce 101]

Pretty sharp edge to edge at 300mm. A nice vacation lens. Travels well.

See here (taken a couple of days ago):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20986207@N03/9753970085/#

 

[KyleSTL]

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:

Lens	Year	MSRP	Retail	Used
70-210mm USM	1990	---	---	$125-150
100-300mm USM	1990	---	---	$125-150
55-250mm IS	2007/2011	$300	$265	$125-150
Tamron 70-300 VC	2010	$450	$450	$230-280
70-300mm IS	2005	$650	$650	$300-360
70-200mm L	1999	$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.

 

[Bruce 101]

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:

Lens	Year	MSRP	Retail	Used
70-210mm USM	1990	---	---	$125-150
100-300mm USM	1990	---	---	$125-150
55-250mm IS	2007/2011	$300	$265	$125-150
Tamron 70-300 VC	2010	$450	$450	$230-280
70-300mm IS	2005	$650	$650	$300-360
70-200mm L	1999	$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.

 

[Ruined]

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.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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.

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]

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.