A new new Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ?

[Grant Atkinson]

Thanks for your additional replies, neuroanatomist and Mikehit.

By the way, I just did find the two youtube vides I referred to earlier:
EF 70-300 L (on 550D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp4bx3BYHFc
EF 100-400 Mk II (on 1D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxSvibXgaNs

The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?

Hi Haggie, perhaps it will be a good idea to rent a 70-300L IS for a few days, as you said. I must say it came as a surprize to me to 'hear' that the EF 70-300L is considered a slow-focusing lens. I have not found it so. I use mine for wildlife photography. Before the 70-300L I owned the 70-200L f4 IS and the 70-200L f2.8 IS ii. After trying out the 70-300L I was so surprized by its fast AF, and decent image quality that I bought one, and nearly always preferred it to both my 70-200L lenses, mainly because of the extra 100mm of focal length, and also because of its fast AF. I also own the EF 100-400L ii and feel that it may AF even faster. Going on how I feel the lenses focus through use, I would rate the new 100-400ii as fast as the 70-200f2.8 IS ii, over the same focal length, and then the EF 70-300L IS just behind that, and as fast as the 70-200L f4 IS if not quicker. The 70-300L is much, much faster to AF than the old 100-400l IS and lenses like the EF 300L f4 IS. I have not used the 55-250 so I cannot comment on that. I have used my 70-300L with the 70D, 7D Mk2, 5DMk3, 1DMk4, 1DX and 760D.
I was happy to see Dustins and Neuro's posts, as they both own the lens and use them.
I have a lot of action images with the EF 70-300L but most of the subject matter is mammals. I find it a bit too short for serious bird photos unless the birds are big and approachable.
Another thing that I like about the EF 70-300L IS is that if you retract it for storage, it is so compact that it can stand upright (with hood reversed) in my camera bag, taking up no more space than a wide angle zoom.
I attached an image taken with the lens, using a 5Dmk3.
Cheers
Grant

 

[haggie]

Mikehit wrote "The 1D series applies much more juice to the AF motors than the xxxD series can ever dream of because !D are designed to drive the 600mm lenses".
You are right there. When testing that 100-400 II on my 70D in the store, it felt about as fast as what I saw on the youtube vid I mentioned. When testing the 70-300 L in the store, this was noticeably slower than the 100-400 II.

And Mikehit also wrote "And it seems to be quicker than the USM version". With this you mean the EF 70-300 non-L from that youtube vid you mention, right?
I fully agree with you there. But everything has faster AF than the present EF 70-300 non-L.

That brings us back at the reason for starting this thread: the present EF 70-300 non-L is soooo slow for anything that actually moves , that a NEW EF 70-300 non-L with faster AF (I hope that the rumor on this board about a new AF means that there will be the new nano-USM) and also with better image quality at the long end in particular.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?

Yes, the body makes a significant difference. Also, seems like you're comparing the time to rack focus from the minimum distance to infinity, and the 70-300L focuses closer than the 100-400 II (the 100-400 gives 0.21x mag, the 70-300 gets to 0.31x despite the shorter focal length). That closer focus means a longer min-max traverse, so even if focus rate is the same the 70-300 would appear 'slower' because of the greater distance the focusing group must move.

So your comparison is artificially and doubly stacking the deck against the 70-300L.

 

[haggie]

Thank you for your elaborate reply, grant Atkinson.
The experiences with the AF speeds of several lenses you describe are in line with what other posters have written. Even though my (short) tests in the store with a 100-400 Mk II and a 70-300 L were different and a Canon representative wrote differently, these are all together too clear and concise for me to ignore.

So I will indeed hire a 70-300 L this summer and just check it myself. Around the landing strip of a commercial airfiield I will get many (and as least as important: reproduceable) opportunities to test and compare the AF-speed of the 70-300 L with my 55-250 STM.

That might bring me back to my original preference: the 70-300 L for both landscape, architecture, vacation and also for action with planes and birds. ???

I am just afreaid that, when the 300 mm proves to be too short for smaller birds (as some earlier replies indicate and I am also a bit afraid of), I will have trouble to convince my wife to buy the EF 200-600 when that arrives. 8) I have the money to spend, but I can only spend it once and the 70-300 L is quite a bit more expensive than I expect the new 70-300 non-L to be (around twice as much, I guess).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?

Yes, the body makes a significant difference. Also, seems like you're comparing the time to rack focus from the minimum distance to infinity, and the 70-300L focuses closer than the 100-400 II (the 100-400 gives 0.21x mag, the 70-300 gets to 0.31x despite the shorter focal length). That closer focus means a longer min-max traverse, so even if focus rate is the same the 70-300 would appear 'slower' because of the greater distance the focusing group must move.

So your comparison is artificially and doubly stacking the deck against the 70-300L.

Not sure about this post. The 100-400L II focuses down to 3.2 ft and gives a 0.31x magnification. It is the 70-300L that focuses only down to 3.94' and gives a 0.21x magnification. I think you got the two figures mixed up. It is the 100-400L II that has to overcome an unusually close minimum focus distance for such a long focal range.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?

Yes, the body makes a significant difference. Also, seems like you're comparing the time to rack focus from the minimum distance to infinity, and the 70-300L focuses closer than the 100-400 II (the 100-400 gives 0.21x mag, the 70-300 gets to 0.31x despite the shorter focal length). That closer focus means a longer min-max traverse, so even if focus rate is the same the 70-300 would appear 'slower' because of the greater distance the focusing group must move.

So your comparison is artificially and doubly stacking the deck against the 70-300L.

Not sure about this post. The 100-400L II focuses down to 3.2 ft and gives a 0.31x magnification. It is the 70-300L that focuses only down to 3.94' and gives a 0.21x magnification. I think you got the two figures mixed up. It is the 100-400L II that has to overcome an unusually close minimum focus distance for such a long focal range.

Thanks! My mistake, scrolling down a spec comparison on my phone, and indeed I mixed the two MFD/max mag figures.

 

[Plainsman]

Mikehit asked "... have you considered the 70-300L?".
Thanks for your answer. And: yes, I have.

But as I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the AF speed of the 70-300 L is not fast enough for photographing fast airplanes or eratically flying birds. I have read this on several websites on these subjects.
I have also seen a test of the EF 70-300 L's AF speed on youtube, and that also showed a rather slow AF speed. And when I directly asked a Canon representative about fast AF speeds, the answer also confirmed this.

But I must honestly say that I also found some fantastic results of sports and birds with the EF 70-300 L. If it is sharp, the results of the 70-300 L are great due to its fantastic image quality. Exactly like you said.

When I have a replacement for my 55-250 STM (hopefully a new EF 70-300 non-L, but otherwise a third party lens in that range) and that proves to be not enough reach for bird photography, I might consider the EF 200-600 that has been mentioned as being close to coming at that time.
If I go out and shoot birds, I only carry one lens in a smaller bag. So then the weight and size is less important. But for my other interests the EF 100-400 Mk II is simply too big and heavy to carry around for days in a row.

But that will not be this year, first I will get the new 80D as a replacement for my 70D and a 70-300 as a replacement for my 55-250 STM (and as I said before, the latter will certainly not be the present EF 70-300 non-L). That is already enough money to spend.

Have you used the 70-300L? I ask because you make the statement that the AF is not fast enough. I've used very few lenses with faster AF than the 70-300L. With all due respect, if you are missing action shots with the 70-300L, is isn't because the lens USM isn't fast enough. It is unlikely that the speed will be eclipsed by a much cheaper lens...and that Canon rep doesn't know what they are talking about if they said the 50-250 STM was faster than the 70-300L on a 70D. I've tested both side by side (owned both), and that simply isn't true. Focus speed is near instantaneous on the 70-300L. You've been given some flawed information.

...so you seem to know more about it than a Canon rep. - that surprises me.

Actually the 55-250 STM is very fast and as it is a new lens it would not surprise me in the least if it turned out to be faster than the few years old 70-300L as improvements in lens technology occur so rapidly.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Mikehit asked "... have you considered the 70-300L?".
Thanks for your answer. And: yes, I have.

But as I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the AF speed of the 70-300 L is not fast enough for photographing fast airplanes or eratically flying birds. I have read this on several websites on these subjects.
I have also seen a test of the EF 70-300 L's AF speed on youtube, and that also showed a rather slow AF speed. And when I directly asked a Canon representative about fast AF speeds, the answer also confirmed this.

But I must honestly say that I also found some fantastic results of sports and birds with the EF 70-300 L. If it is sharp, the results of the 70-300 L are great due to its fantastic image quality. Exactly like you said.

When I have a replacement for my 55-250 STM (hopefully a new EF 70-300 non-L, but otherwise a third party lens in that range) and that proves to be not enough reach for bird photography, I might consider the EF 200-600 that has been mentioned as being close to coming at that time.
If I go out and shoot birds, I only carry one lens in a smaller bag. So then the weight and size is less important. But for my other interests the EF 100-400 Mk II is simply too big and heavy to carry around for days in a row.

But that will not be this year, first I will get the new 80D as a replacement for my 70D and a 70-300 as a replacement for my 55-250 STM (and as I said before, the latter will certainly not be the present EF 70-300 non-L). That is already enough money to spend.

Have you used the 70-300L? I ask because you make the statement that the AF is not fast enough. I've used very few lenses with faster AF than the 70-300L. With all due respect, if you are missing action shots with the 70-300L, is isn't because the lens USM isn't fast enough. It is unlikely that the speed will be eclipsed by a much cheaper lens...and that Canon rep doesn't know what they are talking about if they said the 50-250 STM was faster than the 70-300L on a 70D. I've tested both side by side (owned both), and that simply isn't true. Focus speed is near instantaneous on the 70-300L. You've been given some flawed information.

...so you seem to know more about it than a Canon rep. - that surprises me.

Actually the 55-250 STM is very fast and as it is a new lens it would not surprise me in the least if it turned out to be faster than the few years old 70-300L as improvements in lens technology occur so rapidly.

I've yet to use any STM lens (and I think I've reviewed most all of them) with focus speed that competes with the better USM motors. That's not really the strength of STM. Stepping technology is more about smoothness of focus than maximum speed.

If the new 70-300 sports the Nano USM technology pioneered in the new 18-135 IS USM then I wouldn't be surprised if its focus speed was able to exceed the 70-300L. Nano USM is very, very fast.

As far as knowing more than a Canon rep - I'm sure that's not true on all levels. That being said, I am a photographer who actually uses the lenses, which may not be true of a rep. I also review 20+ lenses per year, so I have a chance to spend extended periods with more gear than the average rep. I've used both lenses extensively on multiple camera bodies.

 

[lux]

I've often considered buying a cheap used 70-300

1)because it was the first telephoto I ever bought and I loved it when I was using it on my old xti...of course my 300 2.8 L IS and my 100-400L is ii are much better but...

2)at our local professional soccer club they have a 6 inch lens rule....and the 70-300 is just under 6 inches.

 

[haggie]

Last weekend I had the opportunity to try out both an EF 70-300 L and the 100-400L II during an air show. I met some people with these lenses there, and could try both lenses for about half an hour each on different planes.

I can be brief.
-The EF 70-300L is simply too slow to focus on anything that does not move in a straight line for some time. So in practise, a commercial airliner taking off or landing is no problem for it, and neither is a slow (propeller) airplane landing or in takeoff. But anything that (1) moves a bit eratically or (2) moves fast is too much for it - except for an occasional 'accident' that happened to be in focus.
-The EF 100-400 II gave me plenty of sharp results for airplanes that the 70-300L missed most of the time.
And the my own EF-S 55-250 STM performed somewhere in between.
This was all done with the same 70D body, so no influence from a camera with faster AF capabilities. The differences are the result of the different properties of each of the lenses.

As an aside: I have also experienced the speed with which the 1D focussed with the EF 100-400 II, and that was astonishing to me. This was the first time I used a 1D. After that my own 70D felt very plain ........ :-\

I must add that the (few) images that were sharp with the EF 70-300 L showed more contrast and detail, and even better color than my EF-S 55-250 STM. As could be expected based on the many tests there are available and expereinces that have been shared.
I could hardly see any differences in IQ between the 70-300 L and the 100-400 II.

So the conclusion can only be that for photographing airplanes in flight and for birds in flight (for completeness: with the 70D), the EF 70-300 L is unusable due to its slow AF.

That brings me to the choise I must make: what lens to chose after I have bought the 80D. I hope the new EF 70-300 non-L will have faster AF than the present 70-300 non-L (which is easy) and than the 70-300 L.

No doubt the IQ of the new EF 70-300 non-L will be less than the IQ of the EF 70-300 L, otherwise there would be no reason (neither for customers of for Canon) to have 2 EF-lenses in the same 70-300 mm range.

But for the AF-speed of the new lens it could be different. I can only hope that the new EF 70-300 non-L will have faster AF than the 70-300 L. From what I have read, the new "nano-USM" technology Canon recently developed could just do that.

But if the new EF 70-300 non-L will not be faster, for whatever reason Canon may have to do so, then AF-speed can no longer be a reason the select a lens for the use I described above. And therefore I will have to jump to another brand - for the first time in 30 years.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Last weekend I had the opportunity to try out both an EF 70-300 L and the 100-400L II during an air show. I met some people with these lenses there, and could try both lenses for about half an hour each on different planes...

Comparisons side by side, in the real world always give more reliable answers. That being said, can not escape the reality:

Canon 100-400 L ii, is calling you, and not will be another one that will satisfy you without regrets.

Other lens brands?
Sigma and Tamron has some good optics, but fast and reliable focus is not its features. Perhaps the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, but the price is higher than the Canon 100-400 L ii ... :