More Talk About the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II [CR2]

[-1]

We’re told the new lens will have a “digital display” like the Zeiss Batis lenses, what information is on that display is unknown at this time.

Question - Does anyone ever use the display in their lenses??

Yes... Hate it when they are missing.

 

[Marauder]

I've read good things about the 55-250STM and Dustin did a great review of it. It wasn't available at the time I bought my 70-300 non L though. Of course, the price of the 70-300 non L is a lot less now, although I paid a fairly steep price for it. I'm curious to see the IQ and price ratio of the replacement when it arrives.

Nice images! Yeah, I don't get the hate either. I have one and it's a rather nice lens for the price and weight. When I NEED reach, I use the 100-400 (version 1), but that's a big and heavy lens and I don't always have it on me. The 70-300 is small and light enough to fit into a standard camera case and give me instant reach if I need it. It might not be L glass, but it's still a decent lens and it's nice that they're planning to come out with a version II.

I don't get the hatred this lens (well, the mk. I) gets on these forums. It's not my best lens, but it's far from unusable. Here's a couple of recent shots I took with it -- I don't think they're that terrible.

I think "hate" the 70-300 non L, is because of the cost benefit very poor. It would be a good buy if the price was $ 300, but the price was $ 650 for many years.

Especially for users of APS-C cameras, you can choose the optimum 55-250 STM. It's not just a question of price, but image quality, focus speed, weight, portability, are all points where 55-250 STM wins by a large margin.

However, the 70-300 non L is still a good lens for cameras like the original 5D, and its 12.8 mega pixel.

 

[9VIII]

...
However, the 70-300 non L is still a good lens for cameras like the original 5D, and its 12.8 mega pixel.

Bingo.
The minimum requirements for making a very good looking picture are extremely low by today's standards.
I really think that Canon should start making a 12MP APS-C sensor just for the sake of native 4K recording on budget bodies. Stills image quality at 20MP+ is lightyears beyond what any casual user needs.
(To be perfectly clear, I want a 50MP APS-C body, but resolution is almost irrelevant outside of focal length limited shooting.)

 

[mrsfotografie]

who, seriously, cares about this lens? where's the 50 1.4 update, ffs

I'm pretty sure that this lens has vastly outsold the 70-300L (for example), so to answer your question - "a lot" of people. I went through two of the "IS USM I" before going with the Tamron.

A friend of mine has it defnietly on the "desperately want" list.
And he's a typical "average" DSLR customer.
(I am more interested in the 100-400II )

Lot's of people seem to swear by that Tammy like it was the Bibel. A crackdown should be in order...

I had that Tammy, and it was better mechanically, with real ring USM (USD) and a non-rotating front element. The IS (VC) was also better, but overall image quality at the long end? meh...

 

[nc0b]

I owned the 70-300mm non-L for several years after buying a 60D. I bought it on CraigsList for around $375. A friend of mine still has his, though I traded mine for a 70-200mm L IS plus $500 cash. I had no complaints about it optically, but I didn't like it extending when zoomed out, nor the rotating front element. I cannot see flaming the lens. I have some nice pictures of small perched birds from 20 to 30 feet, about as close as I can get to a song bird before it flies off. The IS seemed quite good. I now have a 100-400mm II for similar shots with a 5DsR body. The new combo is much heavier and much more expensive. I still cannot get closer than a a few 10s of feet from a small bird.