Random Orbits said:
aj1575 said:
I would like to see such a lens. The 55-250 is a rather cheap Option, but still quite nice. The 100-300 should sit above it, with some extra Features (USM). The price should be between 1/2 to 2/3 of the 70-300L, with IQ close to it, and a lower weight. I think weight and size will play a role in such a decicion. The Sony Alphas and Fuji all have quality zoom lenses in this area, so Canon actually needs to counter, if they like to sell APS-C DSLRs.
A 100-300 would be a nice option to test the market, for such lenses. But I think such a lens would suit very well on 7D II, and many photographers would welcome such a lens in their kit. A little lower IQ (especially at the Corners), but less expensive and lighter, sounds fair.
I have the 70-200 f4 IS, which is a great lens. I actually like to switch to the 70-300L. The only thing that makes me doubt such a switch is, that in the lens comparison-tool over at The-Digital-Picture, the 70-300 is notably weaker than the 70-200. I know these are synthetic Studio shots of test Charts, and most other test say the 70-300 is very good. I'm just not sure because T-D-P is the only place where I can compare shots of lenses, and not only read test Charts, and These shots tell me, IQ wise, it will be a downgrade. Has anybody expirience with those two lenses?
Just took a look at TDP and the 70-300L does look weaker than the 70-200 f/4 IS for crop at all focal lengths, but it is not true for FF. The 70-300L becomes comparable around 135mm, and is clearly ahead at longer focal lengths. I wasn't expecting such a large difference between the crop and FF results. I have only used the 70-300L on FF, and for FF, it works fine. IQ is good and is better than the 70-200s with extenders at the long end.
The thing with the 70-300L is that it seems to have more comprises that other L-lenses. 70-200s do better at the shorter ranges and the 100-400 II is a better (also heavier and larger) lens. And one of the 70-300L's strengths (compact size, and relatively low weight) does not show up on test charts. If you're looking for critical performance at all focal lengths, then the 70-300L doesn't win out. For travel, where weight and size are big factors, it is much more competitive.
I for one, congratulate Canon for the range of telezoom lenses they currently offer – yet at the same time I also think having more options is usually a better thing!
In one sense, I can see a refresh for the EF 70-300mm IS non-L being the most ‘possible’ – i.e. the ‘not-true ring-type USM’ version, or ‘weak USM’ as I sometimes call it. A step up from the 55-250mm in terms of build quality and ‘handling’ (e.g. I prefer true USM, rather than STM or ‘weak USM’).
I actually owned the 100-300mm USM (true USM) – which I really liked the handling of, but it had cons, including:
- Not sharp above about 170mm, esp wide open
- Poor contrast at tele settings wide open
- No IS.
It had particularly good IQ between 100 and 150mm though, and AF was very fast, accurate and consistent! The 70-300mm L which I replaced it with, beats the 100-300mm USM in every every (except size & weight).
If Canon can offer a 100-300mm for EF-S, I see a few possible benefits in relation to size / weight compared to a new hypothetical EF 100-300mm(but not by a huge margin). However since owning the 70-300mm L, I really appreciate the 70-99mm zoom range I have at my disposal.
The difference in sharpness (MTF) between the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L is really minimal. The Digital Picture IQ comparisons are very helpful, BUT need to be viewed with the understanding that:
a) The magnification factors involved (100% viewing, etc) can give an impression of ‘lots of difference’ – when in real-world photos at normal viewing / printing dimensions, is not so apparent. This is particularly true for the APS-C comparisons, and where comparing with FF.
b) There are a few settings where either user error (all respect to Bryan) or individual lens copy variations will not reflect the ‘average’ situation. E.g. there are a few settings where I have detected an obvious vibration (ground, mirror, tripod, camera) or AF issue contributing to less-sharp than should be situations (e.g. a few settings on the Sigma 8-16mm at set focal lengths are not nearly as sharp as f stops around it).
If Canon do build another / a new 100-300mm, (or a 70-300mm – which we haven’t seen a patent of yet) – I expect it would need to be priced and marketed around $600 - $700 USD RRP, in order to sit & remain placed comfortably between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm L. And I expect it would be around the size of the EF 100-300mm USM, (similar to the 70-300mm nonL)
I have used the 70-200mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 IS, as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8 II – and all of these lenses are incredibly sharp on both APS-C and FF. The 70-300mm L gives very little up in terms of sharpness, for the more compact size and variable aperture, as Random Orbits wrote above.
The very minimal differences in between sharpness between all these lenses at comparable focal lengths and apertures is really at the pixel-peeping level. See the following lens reviews – which indicate the very close ranges of sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4 L IS and 70-300mm L IS
http://www.lenstip.com/322.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/25.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff?start=1 (FF)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1 (FF)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/571-canon70300f456islapsc?start=1 (APS-C)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/449-canon_70200_4is_50d?start=1 (APS-C)
It is quite clear that the SLRgear.com’s review of the 70-300mm L lens involved a decentred copy (as they themselves mention briefly in their review). My own experience (I have a great copy of the 70-300mm L), indicates the 70-300mm L is indeed plenty sharp enough. The vast majority of the following real-user experiences agree, the 70-300mm L is a fantastic sharp, handy lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/410/sort/7/cat/27/page/1
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1370/cat/11
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732106-USA/Canon_4426B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6L_IS.html
The new 100-400mm II also shows Canon has achieved success again in recent times with a 4x lens telezoom possibility. All the above L telezoom lenses have great colour and micro-contrast too. We really are spoiled in this day and age. I would not go back to a lessor telezoom lens than my current 70-300mm L… it travels very well, and makes such a versatile lens option with fantastic IQ, 4-stop IS, great AF and is built like a tank. Sure, I’d like it to be around half the weight and smaller… who wouldn’t? But I can easily handhold this lens for hours, and carry it in my Lowepro shoulder bag with ease, while attached to my camera and another lens still on the side.
I mainly use the 70-300mm L on my 7D – and along with my Canon EF-S 15-85mm, makes a fantastic two-zoom lens travel combination – great IQ. I occasionally throw in a small bright prime if I need anything for low light work or for specific depth of field work (e.g. my new EF f/1.8 50mm STM, or my 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens).
Don’t hesitate to buy the 70-300mm L if that meets your zoom range, and you do not require fast(ish) aperture, i.e. f/2.8 or faster. If you’re concerned about sharpness, I hope the above has provided you with enough helpful information and resources.
Cheers
Paul
