Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS Update Information [CR2]

[unfocused]

Hate to derail this amusing thread with a serious comment...but...

I agree Canon will have to thread the needle carefully to avoid undercutting the 70-300 "L." I'm surprised it isn't STM, which would have helped differentiate the two lenses.

 

[slclick]

There you go, caught me understating my length my 5mm.

Ba dum bum. Rimshot. Cue applause.

See, someone got it.

AND with a spelling error, thx Neuro. *by

 

[Tinky]

On launch the current version of the lens was described in some reviews as 'the hidden L' (photozone.de) which moved me to purchase one. That was in the era of 10MP cameras. I'm guessing a lot of lenses, even not all that old, may struggle with the pixel pitch of the 50MP 5D's and the 24MP APS-C's... (I'm supposing more will be mounted on the latter)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

This was one of my worst performing Canon lenses ever! from 200-300 it was just awful! so about time to get rid of this rubbish....

are you thinking of the original 75-300 IS and not the newer 70-300 IS? or maybe shot one in portrait mode before the portrait mode fix? It was pretty far from one of the worst lenses optically.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Hate to derail this amusing thread with a serious comment...but...

I agree Canon will have to thread the needle carefully to avoid undercutting the 70-300 "L." I'm surprised it isn't STM, which would have helped differentiate the two lenses.

I had my eggs firmly in the "70-300 IS STM" basket, to make a perfect telephoto counterpart to the 24-105 IS STM as a low-end (or mid-range) FF zoom pair under the Ls. Was actually hoping for it. C'est la vie. Wonder if this will be an optical improvement or just a built quality update like the new 50.

 

[jhpeterson]

This was one of my worst performing Canon lenses ever! from 200-300 it was just awful! so about time to get rid of this rubbish....

This was my absolutely worst performing Canon lens ever! And, I think that was even before the stops for the IS broke. I wound up with a "tilt" lens where only a tiny field of focus was even close to sharp.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Worst lens that Canon manufactures? ???

No one can steal the trophy for worst lens made by Canon, and it belongs to EF 75-300mm, still alive.

 

[pj1974]

Long story short… several years ago, I wanted a ‘telezoom’ to complement my Canon 28-135mm USM IS.
I bought Canon’s 100-300mm USM. Fast focus. No IS Sharp up to about 170mm. Not good at 200. Poor (unsharp & low contrast at 300mm, just ‘decent’ at f/11.).

I didn’t like any of the 75-300mm variants, and didn’t have the cash to spend on an L. I was quite happy with the 100-300mm for some shots, and with careful technique and clever post processing I could get ‘decent’ images from it, even at 300mm

The non-L 70-300mm IS ‘USM’ came along – but without ‘true’ USM, and it had a potential ‘portrait orientation IQ issue’ (connected with IS in that orientation). While it was overall sharp and had IS, it was more expensive. Plus the AF and build quality was a step down from my 100-300mm USM. So I passed on that lens.

A few years ago while I was ‘waiting’ for the update to the 70-300mm IS ‘USM’ (non L), I tried out the Tamron USD VC, which I quite liked. It had some good reviews, and had a bit better IQ and noticeably better build quality than the 70-300mm IS non-L, but AF was noted as a bit of an issue in some situations. I was thinking about that, or the 55-250mm IS – which was by all accounts sharper (the STM version wasn’t out at that time).

I happened to see the recently released 70-300mm L in store, and asked to try it. Took some photos with my 7D, analysed them at home, and anyway, I was sold. Bought it (got a good deal, and a 67mm Cir Polariser thrown in). Haven’t looked back.

I do see the 70-300mm IS non-L as being a ‘bit’ of an ‘in between’ lens now. In general for people on a budget, looking for a Canon telezoom, I recommend the great 55-250mm IS STM. It’s inexpensive, light and has good IQ overall. Build quality not fantastic, but not too bad for a ‘kit telezoom lens’. For others, depending on their needs I recommend the 70-300mm L (great IQ, very portable), 100-400mm L II (for a bit more reach), or the 70-200 f/2.8 L (if need f/2.8 – and don’t need 300mm to 400mm).

I can see the 70-300mm IS non-L is ‘due’ an update – especially as some have pointed out – to improve its IQ at the tele-end with the higher MP / more pixel dense APS-C DSLRs of today… And yes, it does not appear to be as good as the Nikon equivalent. So I read with interest this thread. Not that I’m going to sell my Canon 70-300mm L IS USM… it’s just too good a lens, and at just 1kg, and being a ‘compact design’ – I love it for all it gives to me!

Paul 8)

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I hope it will offer an improved optical formula to match the resolution and contrast needed for the new high MP sensors

 

[ritholtz]

If Canon is going to do duel pixel FF, this lens might be STM one.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Although it lost a lot of contrast above 220mm or so, I actually thought it was at least as sharp as the Tamron 70-300VC up at that end. It had less contrast by far than my 100-300L had up there, but I also thought the sharpness, being able to pick out tiny details, was at least as good.

It's weird how what used to be called "the hidden L" is now getting called "the worst EF lens ever" here. ???

A few points, early copies needed to be fixed otherwise elements would sag if you didn't shoot it in landscape orientation, maybe some got unfixed copies?

The AF wasn't always the most accurate and that could make apparent sharpness seem a lot less at the longer end at times.

The broad scale contrast was a bit faded at the long end and even the micro-contrast bite not really L-like at the long end, BUT if you compared skinny little details it actually was very reasonably sharp even at 300mm.

I believe the sharpness on it did fall near edges on FF, but on APS-C the sharpness was fine.

 

[Tinky]

+1

After owning my copy I dabbled with other lenses, my go to telezoom, the 70-200 f2.8L is not parfocal, not an issue for stills being taken with AiServo (which is after all, what the lens was designed to be very good at, and it is) but not a great lens for video use, as every time you zoom, you have to refocus (with conventional parfocal video lenses with adjusted back focus you would zoom in on the eyes, focus, and then be quite confident that you could zoom without losing focus)

At one point I owned the 75-300 and the 50-200 USM II, I found strange ghosting artefacts in high contrast situations with the 75-300 and so kept the 50-200. For a while, before generally moving onto better things (including the 70-300 IS for a couple of years)

One of my favourite video lenses is the very early 70-210 f4 EF, the two touch extending zoom. Parfocal and pretty nice across the range, decent sharpness, decent contrast. Horrible for stills, and obviously 1080p is less demanding than todays top still resolutions, but a good video lens. I had one copy of the 100-300 f5.6 (non L) but quickly sold it. It added nothing to the party.

I cannot understand canons reasoning for keeping the 75-300 varients on the go. If you are using full frame you aren't using this lens, and cropped sensor users are far better served in every single way by the 55-250's, and frequently for less money if you shop around. Seems to be a kit special these days for the unawares. I wish canon would bundle the 55-250 IS instead. Would be much better value for folk who might not move on from their first DSLR.

Anyway, total digression.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've had at least two of the 70-300 IS lenses and they were fine at long focal lengths. Not fabulous, but they matched cameras of the day. I was using a 30D at the time, so it did not have quite as much resolution as a newer body.

I do see that most of my use was 160mm or lower, which is probably why I replaced it with a 70-200mm f/4 IS. That was a big step up, but it cost a lot more.

 

[East Wind Photography]

+1

After owning my copy I dabbled with other lenses, my go to telezoom, the 70-200 f2.8L is not parfocal, not an issue for stills being taken with AiServo (which is after all, what the lens was designed to be very good at, and it is) but not a great lens for video use, as every time you zoom, you have to refocus (with conventional parfocal video lenses with adjusted back focus you would zoom in on the eyes, focus, and then be quite confident that you could zoom without losing focus)

At one point I owned the 75-300 and the 50-200 USM II, I found strange ghosting artefacts in high contrast situations with the 75-300 and so kept the 50-200. For a while, before generally moving onto better things (including the 70-300 IS for a couple of years)

One of my favourite video lenses is the very early 70-210 f4 EF, the two touch extending zoom. Parfocal and pretty nice across the range, decent sharpness, decent contrast. Horrible for stills, and obviously 1080p is less demanding than todays top still resolutions, but a good video lens. I had one copy of the 100-300 f5.6 (non L) but quickly sold it. It added nothing to the party.

I cannot understand canons reasoning for keeping the 75-300 varients on the go. If you are using full frame you aren't using this lens, and cropped sensor users are far better served in every single way by the 55-250's, and frequently for less money if you shop around. Seems to be a kit special these days for the unawares. I wish canon would bundle the 55-250 IS instead. Would be much better value for folk who might not move on from their first DSLR.

Anyway, total digression.

Actually it's a very good point. I've been using the 70-200 for video...now using it on my 7DII which has dual pixel AF in video mode which takes "care" of the parfocal issue. However I find at times that it's not enough range for video. For events like performances, orchestras and whatnot, it doesnt have enough range to zoom out to cover the full stage and not enough extension to single out soloists or performers. I can add an extender but I lose the wide range even more. So to cover a complete performance, I need to hire a 2nd camera man to film the wide scenes and then edit everything together later. Generally not a bad thing but it's an extra cost I have to absorb for a customer that doesn't really care. I'd like to get it all in one shoot.

I've been in the market for a decent zoom that can cover the range I need...right now for crop sensor since that seems to the only option right now for dual pixel AF.

I've considered some of the current L models 28-300 but I dont like the dust pump design for video and it really screws up the balance on the fluid head. It seems you have tested a number of different lenses and wondering what you would generally recommend?

 

[moreorless]

Hate to derail this amusing thread with a serious comment...but...

I agree Canon will have to thread the needle carefully to avoid undercutting the 70-300 "L." I'm surprised it isn't STM, which would have helped differentiate the two lenses.

You could I spose argue though that having a cheaper tele zoom might be a greater benefit than avoiding undercutting the 70-300mm at all.

Besides potential 6D users with less money to spend there is clearly a benefit in having APSC users buy FF lenses rather than just EF-S zooms.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

After owning my copy I dabbled with other lenses, my go to telezoom, the 70-200 f2.8L is not parfocal, not an issue for stills being taken with AiServo (which is after all, what the lens was designed to be very good at, and it is) but not a great lens for video use, as every time you zoom, you have to refocus (with conventional parfocal video lenses with adjusted back focus you would zoom in on the eyes, focus, and then be quite confident that you could zoom without losing focus)

At one point I owned the 75-300 and the 50-200 USM II, I found strange ghosting artefacts in high contrast situations with the 75-300 and so kept the 50-200. For a while, before generally moving onto better things (including the 70-300 IS for a couple of years)

One of my favourite video lenses is the very early 70-210 f4 EF, the two touch extending zoom. Parfocal and pretty nice across the range, decent sharpness, decent contrast. Horrible for stills, and obviously 1080p is less demanding than todays top still resolutions, but a good video lens. I had one copy of the 100-300 f5.6 (non L) but quickly sold it. It added nothing to the party.

I cannot understand canons reasoning for keeping the 75-300 varients on the go. If you are using full frame you aren't using this lens, and cropped sensor users are far better served in every single way by the 55-250's, and frequently for less money if you shop around. Seems to be a kit special these days for the unawares. I wish canon would bundle the 55-250 IS instead. Would be much better value for folk who might not move on from their first DSLR.

Actually it's a very good point. I've been using the 70-200 for video...now using it on my 7DII which has dual pixel AF in video mode which takes "care" of the parfocal issue. However I find at times that it's not enough range for video. For events like performances, orchestras and whatnot, it doesnt have enough range to zoom out to cover the full stage and not enough extension to single out soloists or performers. I can add an extender but I lose the wide range even more. So to cover a complete performance, I need to hire a 2nd camera man to film the wide scenes and then edit everything together later. Generally not a bad thing but it's an extra cost I have to absorb for a customer that doesn't really care. I'd like to get it all in one shoot.

I've been in the market for a decent zoom that can cover the range I need...right now for crop sensor since that seems to the only option right now for dual pixel AF.

I've considered some of the current L models 28-300 but I dont like the dust pump design for video and it really screws up the balance on the fluid head. It seems you have tested a number of different lenses and wondering what you would generally recommend?

If you record video quite often, I recommend a video camera dedicated.

In the situation you describe, I recommend 70-200mm F2.8 in 7D Mark II and a second camera with wide angle lens, montadada on a tripod beside him. This way, you can operate the main camera, and just shoot the REC button on the wide-angle camera. This eliminates the requirement to have two people working in the recording.

 

[Tinky]

After owning my copy I dabbled with other lenses, my go to telezoom, the 70-200 f2.8L is not parfocal, not an issue for stills being taken with AiServo (which is after all, what the lens was designed to be very good at, and it is) but not a great lens for video use, as every time you zoom, you have to refocus (with conventional parfocal video lenses with adjusted back focus you would zoom in on the eyes, focus, and then be quite confident that you could zoom without losing focus)

At one point I owned the 75-300 and the 50-200 USM II, I found strange ghosting artefacts in high contrast situations with the 75-300 and so kept the 50-200. For a while, before generally moving onto better things (including the 70-300 IS for a couple of years)

One of my favourite video lenses is the very early 70-210 f4 EF, the two touch extending zoom. Parfocal and pretty nice across the range, decent sharpness, decent contrast. Horrible for stills, and obviously 1080p is less demanding than todays top still resolutions, but a good video lens. I had one copy of the 100-300 f5.6 (non L) but quickly sold it. It added nothing to the party.

I cannot understand canons reasoning for keeping the 75-300 varients on the go. If you are using full frame you aren't using this lens, and cropped sensor users are far better served in every single way by the 55-250's, and frequently for less money if you shop around. Seems to be a kit special these days for the unawares. I wish canon would bundle the 55-250 IS instead. Would be much better value for folk who might not move on from their first DSLR.

Actually it's a very good point. I've been using the 70-200 for video...now using it on my 7DII which has dual pixel AF in video mode which takes "care" of the parfocal issue. However I find at times that it's not enough range for video. For events like performances, orchestras and whatnot, it doesnt have enough range to zoom out to cover the full stage and not enough extension to single out soloists or performers. I can add an extender but I lose the wide range even more. So to cover a complete performance, I need to hire a 2nd camera man to film the wide scenes and then edit everything together later. Generally not a bad thing but it's an extra cost I have to absorb for a customer that doesn't really care. I'd like to get it all in one shoot.

I've been in the market for a decent zoom that can cover the range I need...right now for crop sensor since that seems to the only option right now for dual pixel AF.

I've considered some of the current L models 28-300 but I dont like the dust pump design for video and it really screws up the balance on the fluid head. It seems you have tested a number of different lenses and wondering what you would generally recommend?

If you record video quite often, I recommend a video camera dedicated.

In the situation you describe, I recommend 70-200mm F2.8 in 7D Mark II and a second camera with wide angle lens, montadada on a tripod beside him. This way, you can operate the main camera, and just shoot the REC button on the wide-angle camera. This eliminates the requirement to have two people working in the recording.

Get an EOS M1. The 18-55 is bright enough at the wide angle (half a stop down from your telezoom) altough not so great if you start moving towards the 55 end. Maybe an M1 + 22mm f2 would be a good compromise. Add in a manfrotto superclamp and micro-ball head and you can clamp it to the legs of your main tripod.

The 70-200 L's are pretty good in that they are non-extending so balance isn't that much of an issue on a tripod.

I haven't used equivalents by Sigma or Tamron so I don't know if these are parfocal, unsurprisingly it's not high on the list for reviewers generally doing stills and almost exlcusively using AF.

If you find anything yourself that works better I'd love to hear, parfocal, especially in interview situations, is so handy.

If it helps, my Sigma 18-50 DC EX Macro (generation before the OS) seems to be parfocal, and is a constant f2.8.. maybe one of those on an SL1?

 

[East Wind Photography]

After owning my copy I dabbled with other lenses, my go to telezoom, the 70-200 f2.8L is not parfocal, not an issue for stills being taken with AiServo (which is after all, what the lens was designed to be very good at, and it is) but not a great lens for video use, as every time you zoom, you have to refocus (with conventional parfocal video lenses with adjusted back focus you would zoom in on the eyes, focus, and then be quite confident that you could zoom without losing focus)

At one point I owned the 75-300 and the 50-200 USM II, I found strange ghosting artefacts in high contrast situations with the 75-300 and so kept the 50-200. For a while, before generally moving onto better things (including the 70-300 IS for a couple of years)

One of my favourite video lenses is the very early 70-210 f4 EF, the two touch extending zoom. Parfocal and pretty nice across the range, decent sharpness, decent contrast. Horrible for stills, and obviously 1080p is less demanding than todays top still resolutions, but a good video lens. I had one copy of the 100-300 f5.6 (non L) but quickly sold it. It added nothing to the party.

I cannot understand canons reasoning for keeping the 75-300 varients on the go. If you are using full frame you aren't using this lens, and cropped sensor users are far better served in every single way by the 55-250's, and frequently for less money if you shop around. Seems to be a kit special these days for the unawares. I wish canon would bundle the 55-250 IS instead. Would be much better value for folk who might not move on from their first DSLR.

Actually it's a very good point. I've been using the 70-200 for video...now using it on my 7DII which has dual pixel AF in video mode which takes "care" of the parfocal issue. However I find at times that it's not enough range for video. For events like performances, orchestras and whatnot, it doesnt have enough range to zoom out to cover the full stage and not enough extension to single out soloists or performers. I can add an extender but I lose the wide range even more. So to cover a complete performance, I need to hire a 2nd camera man to film the wide scenes and then edit everything together later. Generally not a bad thing but it's an extra cost I have to absorb for a customer that doesn't really care. I'd like to get it all in one shoot.

I've been in the market for a decent zoom that can cover the range I need...right now for crop sensor since that seems to the only option right now for dual pixel AF.

I've considered some of the current L models 28-300 but I dont like the dust pump design for video and it really screws up the balance on the fluid head. It seems you have tested a number of different lenses and wondering what you would generally recommend?

If you record video quite often, I recommend a video camera dedicated.

In the situation you describe, I recommend 70-200mm F2.8 in 7D Mark II and a second camera with wide angle lens, montadada on a tripod beside him. This way, you can operate the main camera, and just shoot the REC button on the wide-angle camera. This eliminates the requirement to have two people working in the recording.

Get an EOS M1. The 18-55 is bright enough at the wide angle (half a stop down from your telezoom) altough not so great if you start moving towards the 55 end. Maybe an M1 + 22mm f2 would be a good compromise. Add in a manfrotto superclamp and micro-ball head and you can clamp it to the legs of your main tripod.

The 70-200 L's are pretty good in that they are non-extending so balance isn't that much of an issue on a tripod.

I haven't used equivalents by Sigma or Tamron so I don't know if these are parfocal, unsurprisingly it's not high on the list for reviewers generally doing stills and almost exlcusively using AF.

If you find anything yourself that works better I'd love to hear, parfocal, especially in interview situations, is so handy.

If it helps, my Sigma 18-50 DC EX Macro (generation before the OS) seems to be parfocal, and is a constant f2.8.. maybe one of those on an SL1?

I actually have used the M1 for video paired with a Sennheiser shotgun mic. I found it a great combo when you HAVE to hand hold a rig over your head for an extended period of time (as in recording Joshua Bell performing in a train station when it's elbow to elbow) However I do like the idea of putting it on the tripod and just letting it rip. Would still need to edit later but it's a bit less expensive and it's only MY time.

For the 70-300, I'd like to see 28-300 with an IQ and internal zoom improvement. Since I would be using it exclusively for video the F5.6 is not real big issue.

 

[Tinky]

I actually have used the M1 for video paired with a Sennheiser shotgun mic. I found it a great combo when you HAVE to hand hold a rig over your head for an extended period of time (as in recording Joshua Bell performing in a train station when it's elbow to elbow) However I do like the idea of putting it on the tripod and just letting it rip. Would still need to edit later but it's a bit less expensive and it's only MY time.

For the 70-300, I'd like to see 28-300 with an IQ and internal zoom improvement. Since I would be using it exclusively for video the F5.6 is not real big issue.

Yeah the M is a peach when compact form or discretion is required. I also have a wee sennheiser mic I use with mine, a very ancient MKE300. Brilliant directional mic very light too.

We are needing to see some video orientated lenses, with switchable servos!

 

[dufflover]

If they updated the 70-300 non-L so that it was on par with their new EF-S zooms (which I don't own but have read are quite respectable even wide open) and optically similar to the L-version I'd be pretty interested - at the appropriate price ofcourse.

I caught the opportunistic aviation bug a few years ago but have found the best zoom range to have is awkwardly right inbetween my 70-200 and 100-400; where 100 is sometimes not wide enough, and on the end 200 not long enough. But as soon as I put a TC on the 70-200 I'm back to ~100-280 which is no better than the 100-400. Ofcourse with those two L's (and the Sigma 120-300 OS) I ain't going to go fork out for a 70-300L either!