I am glad to see that a new 70-300 non-L may be coming, assuming that it will have nano-USM (which apparently stands for even faster AF than STM) and better IQ than the bad IQ of the present 70-300 non-L.
To be honest, I am quite surprised to read replies now and then that seem to indicate that the present EF 70-300 non-L is not all that bad. I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.
But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand!
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.
So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.
Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but in particular at the long end. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality.
And on a personal note: I hope that such a lens becomes available this year, or it will be too late for me and I will have chosen a non-Canon lens. That would be for the first time in 3 decades of shooting with Canon.
To be honest, I am quite surprised to read replies now and then that seem to indicate that the present EF 70-300 non-L is not all that bad. I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.
But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand!
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.
So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.
Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but in particular at the long end. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality.
And on a personal note: I hope that such a lens becomes available this year, or it will be too late for me and I will have chosen a non-Canon lens. That would be for the first time in 3 decades of shooting with Canon.
Upvote
0
