Review: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Canon's latest round of zooms (24-105L II, 70-300 IS II) seem to have been fairly underwhelming optically...and that is coming from Bryan, who is generally pretty kind to Canon products. Not good. The 16-35L III was optically pretty good, but is crippled by a very high price tag and a few annoying issues (vignette and fairly destructive distortion).

I haven't had my hands on the 24-105L II or 70-300 IS II, though I expect them within the next couple of weeks. I'll draw my own conclusions, but Bryan's review of both these lenses has cooled my anticipation of them.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

Interesting review, but what I am seeing from my YouTube channels viewers is that this lens is actually sharper then the mark I and the Tamron SP 70-300mm both. So it could be they got a bad copy or didnt set the MFA before taking photos..

 

[ExodistPhotography]

I haven't had my hands on the 24-105L II or 70-300 IS II, though I expect them within the next couple of weeks. I'll draw my own conclusions, but Bryan's review of both these lenses has cooled my anticipation of them.

Will be waiting on those reviews Dustin ;-).

I have been considering this lens. But 300mm is just a little to short for me. Think I will just save up for 100-400mm II L lens.

 

[crashpc]

Interesting review, but what I am seeing from my YouTube channels viewers is that this lens is actually sharper then the mark I and the Tamron SP 70-300mm both. So it could be they got a bad copy or didnt set the MFA before taking photos..

I hope for exactly that.
Othewise It would be really silly move (Canon! )
Don´t want to get stuck with very good 55-250mm IS STM.

 

[rrcphoto]

Why is it a great choice for photographers with already great lenses just because it's a good buy price-to-performance wise ?

because not everyone can afford or wants to buy a 70-300L or a 100-400L?
:

 

[jd7]

Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.

In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

 

[Sporgon]

Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.

In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

You could be really disappointed if you think it will be up to the 70-300L. I've used that lens and the USM I non L version and it's like night and day at the longer end. The reviews of the version II are saying it's not that different from the I, and so I guess this is an example of where the-digital-picture crops can be misleading.

That shot of the M5 @ 300 on TDP review is just unacceptable at both f6.3 and 8 IMO. In the U.K. half a grand £ is a fair amount of money, hobby-wise, and my gripe is the fact that you can get an asp-c equivalent fov lens and body that will produce better IQ for the price of this lens. FF should be about better quality output surely ?

 

[jd7]

Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.

In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

You could be really disappointed if you think it will be up to the 70-300L. I've used that lens and the USM I non L version and it's like night and day at the longer end. The reviews of the version II are saying it's not that different from the I, and so I guess this is an example of where the-digital-picture crops can be misleading.

That shot of the M5 @ 300 on TDP review is just unacceptable at both f6.3 and 8 IMO. In the U.K. half a grand £ is a fair amount of money, hobby-wise, and my gripe is the fact that you can get an asp-c equivalent fov lens and body that will produce better IQ for the price of this lens. FF should be about better quality output surely ?

Agree FF should be about better IQ. There has to be some reason for carrying a larger and heavier camera! Regarding the shot of thre M5, is the problem it's not sharp or it's a DOF thing? I'm still viewing on a phone only, but it looks like the text on the front of the lens is pretty clear even wide open ...? I'm guessing the answer is no, and when I get to view on a bigger screen I will see what you are talking about in terms of the lens being soft.

I have considered something like an M + 55-200 as an alternative, and maybe that would be a better option ... or even a 135L and rely on cropping since I'd have no zoom. Anyway, guess I will worry about it more when I have a trip lined up.

 

[Sporgon]

Regarding the shot of thre M5, is the problem it's not sharp or it's a DOF thing? I'm still viewing on a phone only, but it looks like the text on the front of the lens is pretty clear even wide open ...? I'm guessing the answer is no, and when I get to view on a bigger screen I will see what you are talking about in terms of the lens being soft.

I was referring to the 49 at the bottom of the frame, there seems a fair jump in clarity between f5.6 and f11 even on the small size that it's being viewed at, which doesn't bode well for the full size image. However I guess a lot of these lenses will be used on crop cameras so this outer area won't be relevant.

The top of the lens letters are dead centre, and I seems to remember that the mk1 wasn't too bad wide open in the very centre - like the small spot meter area of the frame. Then it fell away badly. If using FF it's definitely better to stump up for a 70-300L, even if that means used IMO.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Let's look at the good side: ???

Canon replaced a "quite weak" 70-300, for another 70-300 "less bad", and this costs less than the previous : Now, Canon can compete on price with the Tamron 70-300VC, and the Sigma 70-300OS, and discontinue the terrible 75-300mm, and the overpriced 70-300DO.

 

[dufflover]

70-200/2.8 + 1.4x = 98-280/4
70-200/2.8 + 2.0x = 140-400/5.6

Not when the issue is that the minimum 100 of the 100-400 is the issue
(a niche case for the market but unfortunately one for my purposes lol)

 

[jeffa4444]

Canon's latest round of zooms (24-105L II, 70-300 IS II) seem to have been fairly underwhelming optically...and that is coming from Bryan, who is generally pretty kind to Canon products. Not good. The 16-35L III was optically pretty good, but is crippled by a very high price tag and a few annoying issues (vignette and fairly destructive distortion).

I haven't had my hands on the 24-105L II or 70-300 IS II, though I expect them within the next couple of weeks. I'll draw my own conclusions, but Bryan's review of both these lenses has cooled my anticipation of them.

I shot with the Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II against my MK1 version on a Canon CPS day in Dorset, England and found the lens to be much better at controlling chromatic aberrations. The sample I had was better at 105mm but the rest of the range was similar to the original including vignetting which I was disappointed with. Our local supplier is giving us three lenses to test next week, this will be a controlled test with a light sphere using a CIPA high resolution chart and external tests so it will be interesting to see how they vary.

 

[mrsfotografie]

70-200/2.8 + 1.4x = 98-280/4
70-200/2.8 + 2.0x = 140-400/5.6

Not when the issue is that the minimum 100 of the 100-400 is the issue
(a niche case for the market but unfortunately one for my purposes lol)

If I need range and versatility, I'll grab my 70-300L which is not f/4 at the long end but delivers excellent image quality even when used wide open. I found my 100-400L Mk I to be disappointing in comparison to the 70-300L, and when I invested in a 2x MkIII to make my 70-200 L IS II go to 400 mm, I was completely satisfied with the result. I then sold my 100-400 and the 100-400 Mk II has not tempted me since.

 

[Random Orbits]

If I need range and versatility, I'll grab my 70-300L which is not f/4 at the long end but delivers excellent image quality even when used wide open. I found my 100-400L Mk I to be disappointing in comparison to the 70-300L, and when I invested in a 2x MkIII to make my 70-200 L IS II go to 400 mm, I was completely satisfied with the result. I then sold my 100-400 and the 100-400 Mk II has not tempted me since.

I used to think that way. I got a used original 100-400 and found similar results to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III. The form factor/handling was better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III. Then I tried the 100-400 II, and now it's the 70-300L that is the odd lens out, except for when weight/space is at a premium.

 

[haggie]

The first test of the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM has become available, and I have read a lot of disappointed responses to the image quality of it. Being in the market for this lens, I took a few days before reading that test again, so I could read and interpret it with a fresh pair of eyes.
I just finished spelling it out and reviewing the results on the site of the-digital-picture.com.


The new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is an EF-lens, so it is intended to be used on Canon’s more expensive full frame (FF) cameras. The image quality on full frame cameras shows to be hardly an improvement, if at all.

That is a bit of a surprise to me, because recently Canon had showed to be capable to produce lenses with fine optical performance for a relatively low price. The EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM for APS-C cameras, is an example of this. It does not have ‘professional’ build quality and not even a metal bayonet, so it requires attention. But the image quality is quite decent. And even the AF is quite fast and accurate.

Owning a Canon 80D, I am particularly interested in the image quality of this new 70-300 lens on an APS-C camera (as opposed to on full frame). The tests results for this comparison are now available at the-digital-picture.com, albeit for the 7D MkII.

Comparing the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM with the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM on an APS-C camera, I expected to see better results, in particular at the edges of the frame (for obvious technical reasons). And in my mind that would have made sense for Canon also, if Canon wants to offer ‘entry level’ FF buyers an equivalent to what the 55-250 STM is for the APS-C user.

However, on an APS-C camera, the test results show that @ 70mm, the IQ of the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM at the center, in mid-frame and even in the corner is worse than that of the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM. The sharpness is less and contrast is less. Even the CA is worse.
And @ 200 mm the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM also shows less sharpness and less contrast at the center, in mid-frame and in the corner than the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM. The CA is better at this zoom position, though.
And with both lenses at their maximum zoom position, the image quality of the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM @ 300 mm compared to the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM @ 250 mm, again shows a worse sharpness and less contrast at the center, in mid-frame and in the corner than. The only thing that is better at maximum zoom, is again the CA.

I therefore must conclude that I also am disappointed with the image quality of the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM.
I, nor anyone with some sense, expected an image quality at the level of the L-series lenses. But there is even hardly any improvement over its over 10 years old predecessor, and that was not exactly an example of fine IQ – as many responses all over the internet show (also on this board, despite the at times fanatic opposition against that fact).

It is hard to understand why the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, that in many aspects is comparable to the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM but costs about 60 to 80 % more (depending on where you live), does not deliver better images.


It seems that the AF-system of this new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is remarkable, though that has not been confirmed in any test. And it is true that in real life the AF performance is a very important characteristic for al lens: fast AF-speed, high AF-accuracy and low AF-spread can result in many ‘keepers’ in less-than-optimal circumstances.

I cannot accept some critics (or cynics) being right when these folks write that Canon sometimes markets crippled products to protect the sales of other, higher end and therefore more profitable, products. That is not how I saw and still see Canon.

Perhaps the results of other (independent) review sites will show better results, what may lead to the conclusion that this test by the-digital-picture.com was performed with a lousy, early copy of this lens.
I truly hope so, because for many aspects of this lens I really want to buy it. But based on the test results of this (single) test, I will just wait until I see better test results at a few other (independent) test sites.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is hard to understand why the new Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, that in many aspects is comparable to the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM but costs about 60 to 80 % more (depending on where you live), does not deliver better images.

Costs about 60 to 80% more, because it covers an image circle larger than that of EF-S lenses. Yes, it is a small improvement over the old 70-300 model, and disappoints in 70mm, but it is the only option below $ 1000 for those who require first-party lenses.

I think the price of this 70-300 IS ii is lower (compared to the old model) to also replace the awful Canon 75-300mm. In fact, the 55-250 STM is still a better choice for APS-C users.

 

[rrcphoto]

The

TL;DR.

canon has a $500 option (this), a $1300 option (70-300L), a $2000 option (100-400L)

and you're complaining it's not steller and should be as good as better lenses? and that canon "CRIPPLES IT" .. well, no shi sherlock .. look at the price of it.

good grief. canon is making this lens to fit in a cheap segment of course it's not going to be amazing. canon's making it to be bargain basement pricing.

 

[jblake]

Disappointed by the reviews, I'm always on the lookout for a lightweight good value lens; this isn't it. The mk 1 version was dire at the long end, this looks to be similar.

+1. This one's off my list of potentially good lightweight travel lenses. Looks like Tamron will have continuing success selling the 70-300 VD USD.

Generally agree the new lens is not sounding fantastic, although looking at the TDP IQ comparison test between the new lens and the 70-300L at 300, the new lens seemed pretty close. I was looking on a phone screen though - won't have access to a big screen for a couple of days. Is there a clear IQ difference once you see it on a bigger screen?

Apart from TDP, are there other reviews of the new lens up yet? I didn't spot any when I looked yesterday.

In fact, the new 70-300 IS ii, compares well against the "L" model at 300mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Well, if it's optically not too far off the 70-300L, it is starting sound pretty good when you factor in weight and cost as well. Obviously the build quality won't be L, but I might end up a buyer of one of these after all. Will wait for some more reviews though. If I got it it would be for use as a travel telephoto and, sadly, I don't have any trips planned at the moment.

You could be really disappointed if you think it will be up to the 70-300L. I've used that lens and the USM I non L version and it's like night and day at the longer end. The reviews of the version II are saying it's not that different from the I, and so I guess this is an example of where the-digital-picture crops can be misleading.

That shot of the M5 @ 300 on TDP review is just unacceptable at both f6.3 and 8 IMO. In the U.K. half a grand £ is a fair amount of money, hobby-wise, and my gripe is the fact that you can get an asp-c equivalent fov lens and body that will produce better IQ for the price of this lens. FF should be about better quality output surely ?

The TDP charts are accurate. If you compare the 70-300L and the 70-300 I, both at 300mm, on say the 1Ds III, the image quality is night and day as you say.

But, when you compare the 70-300 II to the 70-300L, the L holds just a slight edge in sharpness at 300mm.

When comparing the 70-300 I vs II on full frame, the mark II is clearly superior through out the entire focal range. I think Mr, Carnathan needs to edit his review of the 70-300 II. He said the mark I was slightly sharper than the mark II is. This is only true on crop bodies (7DII), not on full frame.

I think TDP was looking at the crop results and not the full frame results when he came to his conclusion. His review is in serious error and is quite misleading about the image quality of this new lens, at least on a full frame camera.

TDP needs to review their own test results and edit that review.