70-300mm IS due for update

[KyleSTL]

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?: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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I expect it to be discontinued and not updated. It is a Dinosaur. Of course, it might be announced tomorrow.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has the EF-S 55-250 for APS-C users. I think that right now, if you buy a FF body, Canon wants you to buy L-series lenses to go with it.

I think that eventually, Canon will get FF sensors into the xxD line, if not the xxxD. At that point, there will be a need for 'consumer' EF non-L lenses, and we'll see an updated 28-135 as a kit lens, and an updated 70-300 as a telezoom.

 

[Bruce 101]

I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm. Of course, it's not a low light lens and of course it can't compare to the 70-200 series but it's a fine lens. It's light, it's small, it is well built (unlike the 55-250) and it's a full frame lens. Is it worth $650? No. I bought a near mint copy for $275.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

I think many of the people criticizing the non-L 70-300 either are confusing it with the 75-300 series or have never used it. For years users of both the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and the non-L 70-300 IS have debated which is the preferred lens. The IQ is better on the L but there are several reasons the 70-300 may be the preferred or better lens for many people.

 

[KyleSTL]

I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm. Of course, it's not a low light lens and of course it can't compare to the 70-200 series but it's a fine lens. It's light, it's small, it is well built (unlike the 55-250) and it's a full frame lens. Is it worth $650? No. I bought a near mint copy for $275.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

I think many of the people criticizing the non-L 70-300 either are confusing it with the 75-300 series or have never used it. For years users of both the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and the non-L 70-300 IS have debated which is the preferred lens. The IQ is better on the L but there are several reasons the 70-300 may be the preferred or better lens for many people.

Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ. Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin). Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300.

The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS

In every other department the 70-200mm is a much better lens, in my opinion.

EDIT: I have used the 70-200mm f/4L on a few occasions, so I am speaking from personal experience.

 

[Bruce 101]

The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS

Well, I would add that its primary advantage is the extra reach of 200mm to 300mm and, as its black, it's less conspicuous, and it's shorter so you can take it into some venues that you cannot take the L lens.

I have very little experience with the 70-200 f/4 non-IS but I used it enough in the store and have read enough to know that its IQ is better than the 70-300 non-L for sure. And the auto focus is better. And maybe the color and contrast.

But, I doubt you'll find the 70-200 f/4 used for under $300. And that and the above noted six advantages of the 70-300 may make the 70-300 a wiser choice for some. It does not mean the the non-L is a better lens.

Having the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I have never been tempted to buy either of the f/4 models of the 70-200. And I'm not now. I still love my 70-300. And I am not alone. Read the comments by Roger on the LensRentals site wherein he reviews in mini format the newer L version of the 70-300. While he concedes that the 70-300L is a far better lens, he suggests saving your money and buying the consumer non-L 70-300.

 

[jthomson]

Just get the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD.
Better build
faster focusing
similar optics
lower cost

Canon isn't the only option.

 

[sagittariansrock]

To the OP:
In 2010 I thought the 70-300 will get a renewal, since Canon was practically giving it away with bodies, and huge rebates were available even without. Even at that time, the difference between the Nikon and the Canon was apparent. But Canon came out with the L instead, and as Neuro mentioned, it was evident that Canon wanted FF users to go L. 2.5 years, and there's been no new non-L. I don't think it's going to happen.

Just get the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD.

Just make sure you never need to sell it, because selling my Tamron was a real pain!

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

You must have an exceptional copy. I found mine not to be so sharp between 250-300.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

Agreed. Even the 55-250 non-STM was better than the 70-300 and focused as fast. In fact, as the above post said, the Tamron is a much better lens all around (except for resale value).

Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ. Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin). Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300.

Having both the 100-300 and the 70-300, I beg to differ. The 100-300 was fast, but in every other department it sucked. Pretty bad IQ all the way, even if you discount the lack of IS. 70-210, I have no idea about.

 

[Bruce 101]

Even the 55-250 non-STM was better than the 70-300 and focused as fast.

That has not been my experience and I owned the 55-250 and the 70-300 at the same time for a short while. The 55-250 (non-STM) was/is a nice lens with lousy build and was/is close but not equal to the 70-300 IS in IQ, color, contrast, focusing. The much inferior 75-300 was often given away in kits (and still is). While the 70-300 is still part of Canon kits from time to time (right now on their rebate packages), the 75-300 was the one that added little cost to the package and zero value.

While the Tamron gets better reviews, despite its alleged sluggish focus (and, according to some, it features Tamron's "quality control" issues - I had such an issue with the 24-70 VC), I do worry about the resale.

 

[PureShot]

This lense is amazing, i love this lense in studio or for outside
PHOTOZONE Verdic
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.
www.pureshotstudio.com

 

[Haydn1971]

The 70-300 IS provides me with some fantastic photos - I'm generally happy with what I use it for, which is landscape work - it gets soft beyond 200mm, but then I'm comparing it to my 135L, which I find better in some uses including with my 1.4x extender - cropping into a 189mm shot taken with the 135+1.4x is sharper and the AF far superior for fast action, but a pig for flexibility - which is why I want to upgrade to a white telephoto zoom like the 70-300L, 100-400 or a 70-200 2.8 IS II with extenders...

If you are in the market for a low cost but good quality tele with some flaws in AF, take a look at the 70-300 IS - its not a bad lens, it's just not an L lens !

 

[Sporgon]

This lense is amazing, i love this lense in studio or for outside
PHOTOZONE Verdic
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.
www.pureshotstudio.com

I should point out that that quote came from the verdict after testing on an 8mp APS-c. I checked it out because I would have been surprised if photozone had made this remark about FF or a high res APS-c. The 70-300 non L is a slightly whacky lens, as opposed to the L version which is slightly superlative. If it is a long way out on focus the torque from the front end is rather alarming for those that aren't used to this type of thing. The manual focus is, well, don't go there. It is very out of date in this respect. However it is very good optically from 70 to about 110, significantly better than the 24-105 for instance, and at 200 to 300 it produces a rather impressive soft focus effect that's better than the dedicated 135 soft focus. It's a very popular lens though, I see many of them about with the public at sporting events.

 

[raptor3x]

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.

And then there's the Tamron 70-300 VC which stomps on both the Canon and Nikon options.

 

[Bruce 101]

I should point out that that quote came from the verdict after testing on an 8mp APS-c. I checked it out because I would have been surprised if photozone had made this remark about FF or a high res APS-c. The 70-300 non L is a slightly whacky lens, as opposed to the L version which is slightly superlative. If it is a long way out on focus the torque from the front end is rather alarming for those that aren't used to this type of thing. The manual focus is, well, don't go there. It is very out of date in this respect. However it is very good optically from 70 to about 110, significantly better than the 24-105 for instance, and at 200 to 300 it produces a rather impressive soft focus effect that's better than the dedicated 135 soft focus.

Wow, criticizing the lens because the great review of it is too old! That's a reach.

The SL-1 is a high rez APS-c and the 70-300 performs quite well on it. All the way to 300mm. Maybe I have a very good copy?

 

[PureShot]

Here canon 6D with 70-300mm is
http://www.studio-photo.ca/galerie/photo-commerciale-publicitaire/#prettyPhoto[gallery-1]/8/
its the last photo in the gallery - corporate portrait
how you find this lense with FF ?

 

[Sporgon]

Wow, criticizing the lens because the great review of it is too old! That's a reach.

The SL-1 is a high rez APS-c and the 70-300 performs quite well on it. All the way to 300mm. Maybe I have a very good copy?

It's not a case of the review being old; it is the fact it was on 8 mp aps. Photozone do not wax so lyrical in their reviews based upon higher resolution cameras.

However as I said, at 70 to about 110 it is stellar when stopped down a little. At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect.

 

[Bruce 101]

At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect.

That is really hilarious. It is a slow, consumer lens - not intended for low light venues. But, outdoors in good light, it's a fine lens. Edge to edge sharp and all the way to 300mm.

I have not been able to create the "creative effect", "poor midframe" "bizzare" highlights or "blurred mid to edge" - possibly you had a very, very bad copy. Hope you were able to return it.

From this link, http://www.flickr.com/photos/20986207@N03/,
there are two wide shots (18mm with either an SL-1 and 18-55 STM or 18-135STM). The other three shots are with the SL-1 and the 70-300 non-L IS @300mm.

 

[Loswr]

possibly you had a very, very bad copy

I guess TDP got one of those bad copies, too.

 

[Bruce 101]

I guess TDP got one of those bad copies, too.
[/quote]

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

And so did the real users here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=146426&highlight=70-300&page=103

 

[Loswr]

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).