Canon Non-L 70-300 Canon Lenses

[Tronhard]

I have quite a lot of Canon gear, including quite a few L series lenses, but I am also interested in the non-professional units as there are a lot of people who cannot or choose not invest in such expensive units. I have had for some time the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, a unit released in 2005 that has caused some controversy amongt users as they apparently have had mixed results with it. Personally I have liked the images taken with it, but it had some annoying traits, like the noisy autofocus and IS, and the way the lens would stick out of its fully retracted condition at random times. Still in its price point and time it was a valid update from the standard kit zoom of 55-250.


This image was taken on the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM with a Canon 60D: 300mm, f9, 1/400sec ISO 500

So recently I acquired the EF 70-300 f4.0-5.6 IS II USM and had the following impressions of this newer piece of kit.

1. It has had a major cosmetic upgrade. Gone the busy and lumpy control layout and in with a sleek smooth matte plastic shape that is bigger in diameter than the MkI - the old unit had a 58mm filter ring while the new one is at 67mm. The weight has been kept under control 710g from 630g is not too bad considering the changes "under the hood".

The buttons are now recessed more and it now sports a LCD display that offers DoF indicators for the currently selected focal length, or (press a button) the FoV of the lens - which seems superfluous considering lens focal length is printed on the focusing ring about 1 cm above. For those using an ASP-C body it DOES give the equivalent FoV values automatically. Finally after another press it gives you the degree of shake experienced by the lens. PERSONALLY I have little use for any of these so I would tend to leave the display off, but that's a personal choice.

2. The body is still not weather sealed but the rear element, located flush with the metal plate at the rear of the lens, is fixed in place, so it may offer some resistance to bellows effect. The lens still extends and retracts like the old one, but I have had no experience of it locking up in awkward places as before.

3. The autofocus is blazingly fast thanks to the Nano USM motor that combines best of STM and ring-type USM - I can see this appearing in more lenses. I did not find it was hunting as the MkI did on a few occasions. This is an amazing performer in this area.

4. IS offers 4 stops compared to the claimed 3 of the MkI and it seems to hold onto that. Which is just as well as my research and own experience indicates that the variable aperture of this lens loses its wider capacity significantly faster as one increases the focal length than the earlier model- essentially it is a slower lens across much of the zoom range. From what I have read this is seen as a result of the more complex optical construct of the lens.

Being almost silent it is likely a much more suitable candidate for video than the previous one that sounded like a tinker's cart in comparison! Still if you don't do video (as I don't) that is less of an issue unless you are concerned about disturbing your subjects - say at a wedding...

5 In terms of distortion, vignetting etc. I found both the lenses performed reasonably well in both areas - the focal range of telezoom is much less challenging than one going from wide to tele, such as the 24-105 or the 18-135. I had no difficulty in letting the PP software do its magic to make the appropriate corrections.

6. Performance on FF vs APS-C. This was interesting to me... I tried both the units on a canon 700D (T5i Rebel), a 60D, 80D, 7DII and 5DIII. I found the latter three units seemed to render similarly good results, especially considering they are two crop and a FF body respectively. I was less enamoured with the Rebel and OK with the 60D. I will hazard no inference here simply report my own experience and perception.

Neither of these units could or should be compared to the fabulous Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. This is one of my favourite lenses: relatively light, small form factor, incredibly sharp and responsive - but about 3 times the price of the new EF 70-300 F4.0-5.6 IS II USM, so I see these as aimed at completely different markets and one has to consider that when judging them. Being an EF rather than EF-S lens, the EF 70-300 F4.0-5.6 IS II USM is worth considering as a great upgrade lens for those leaving the standard kits lenses and considering one day moving up to a FF body and who need the extra reach of the 70-300mm rather than one of the 70-200 EF models.

Some photos take with the new lens: all were hand-held, using available light.

5DMkIII, 200mm, f9, 1/500sec, ISO 200


Canon 7DMkII, 135mm, f9, 1/250sec, ISO 800


Canon 5DMkIII, 300mm, f7.1, 1/400sec, ISO 200

[Tronhard]

Just to stop this bumping... I would be interested if any other contributors have experience with this lens and would like to add their own comments.

[rpcrowe]

I "almost" purchased this lens "except" for the disturbing reports that it was experiencing focusing difficulties at 300mm "when the camera was turned to the vertical position". My local Calumet brick and mortar camera shop assured me that there were no such difficulties, so much for the guidance and expertise that is often spouted about local brick and mortar stores.

The shop had five of these lenses in stock and I decided that if I were going to purchase this lens, I would do so from the local store so returning it in case of problems would be easier that if I had to ship or mail back a lens.

I stopped off in the store and "lo and behold" there were none of these lenses left in stock. None of the sales people could or would tell me what happened to the five lenses, except to guess that they might have been sold. Anyway, I found out, from the Internet, that Canon had recalled these lenses to fix the focus problem mentioned earlier.

Before another copy of that lens arrived at the Calumet store, Canon had come out with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I snapped up one of these from B&H and have never regretted the decision...

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens was more expensive than the 70-300mm IS but, I have been using it for many-many years now with absolutely no problems. I would guess that, pro-rated, the difference in cost between the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm L lens would not be excessive. I have carried this lens all over the world and I also use it for all of my dog portraits...

[DanK]

the 70-200 f/4 IS is also built like an absolute tank. Mine has fallen twice. The first time was when my tripod, extended to full height, was blown over by a very strong gust of wind. The camera landed on concrete, with the front of the lens being the point of impact. The lens hood was shattered, and the front of the lens looked damaged. I took it to a good photo repair shop. they replaced the filter ring but said that the lens otherwise tested fine. It did in fact perform fine when I got it back. Then, more recently, I pulled my camera bag out of the back of my Subaru Outback, and the bag was open. That same lens and my 5 DIII (with the 24-105 L mounted on it) both dropped from whatever height that is onto concrete. There was a scuff mark on the camera, but everything worked fine. This time I didn't even take it in to have the alignment checked.

That aside, I found this a useful review, but the posted images don't seem all that informative to me. Unless a lens is really weak, I don't think its flaws will be all that apparent when an image is downsized to this size.

[rpcrowe]

If there was a used lens for Sony e Mount cameras at this price point, I would snap it up in a heartbeat.

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%201...BoCUZIQAvD_BwE

IMO, this would be a great alternative to the 70-200mm f.4L IS lens if you did not desire to spend the extra cash on the L lens...

[Tronhard]

One of the great tests of a lens is to see how much you can crop one of its images and still get something decent. So I took the 70-300MkII out to the Tiritiri Open Sanctuary and along the way took this shot of a juvenile Tui:


So after a bit of cropping I got this:


Gory details: Canon 80D, 300mm, f8, 1/50 sec, ISO 1600

I took the Mark I version of the 70-300 lens to the same island and this is an image that I got from that experience. I was using a Canon 5DMkIII, and the shots were hand-held again.

[Tri Danimal]

about a month ago I got the 70-200 F4 L (NOT IS) for $325 used. I couldnt be happier with it. I haven't used it a ton but do enjoy using it adapted on my A7iii. The best part is I can use all my Tamron 28-75 filters with it. ITs totally worth looking around for used copies of the lens. I would highly reccomend checking Reddit sub forum PhotoMarket for great deals.

[rpcrowe]

The Sony version of the 70-300mm lens is a bit sower at minimum focal length (f/4.5 rather than f/4)and it is considerably more expensive than either the Canon or Tamron versions. What finally turned me off was the mediocre sharpness of both the 70-300mm lens and the 24-240mm lens (as documented by DXO).

I finally opted for the Sony 70-200mm f/4 OSS which has a constant f/4 aperture and better performance albeit with a shorter maximum focal length. One thing that the Sony 70-300mm lens has that is not available on the 70-200mm is the focus hold button which, on other Sony lenses, I reprogram for Eye-AF. However the new A6400 as full time Eye-AF so the button is not really required...