# The Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM II Still Scheduled to Arrive This Year [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 28, 2016)

```
We’re told that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM II is still scheduled to arrive this year. Keep in mind lens announcements can be bumped pretty easily, which we saw recently with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. That lens was initially schedule to be announced in June.</p>
<p>We can confirm that this will be the first Canon lens with an LCD display built-in, however we’re still not sure what information will be present on the digital display.</p>
<p>The lens will be equipped with Nano-USM, the latest IS and will be heavier than the current model. Expect a big optical upgrade too we’re told.</p>
<p>There’s also a <a href="http://nokiS___a-camera.blogspot.ca/2016/08/2016827.html">buzz about another DSLR body coming</a>, dubbed DS126651, as seen at a Russian certification agency. We haven’t personally heard anything about another imminent camera body.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 28, 2016)

Is that 2nd DSLR body somehow replacement to 100D ? That would certainly be useful if Canon(highly unlikely considering their tendency to castrate features) were to put same sensor from 80D and hybrid viewfinder and charge 900$ for it. I certainly would go for such a camera for lighter travelling up in Himalayas.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 28, 2016)

Maybe an entry level body, although I'm not sure how Canon would improve on their current rebels unless to put one out there at a lower price point.
Add: or maybe a body with some cool styling and colors to appeal to millennials.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 28, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> There’s also a buzz about another DSLR body coming, dubbed DS126651, as seen at a Russian certification agency. We haven’t personally heard anything about another imminent camera body.
> More to come…



wasn't that about an EOS-M5? or are you now hearing it's a DSLR?


----------



## AJ (Aug 28, 2016)

_ the first Canon lens with an LCD display built-in_

Why? I wonder what it'll display?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 28, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > There’s also a buzz about another DSLR body coming, dubbed DS126651, as seen at a Russian certification agency. We haven’t personally heard anything about another imminent camera body.
> ...



This is something different, it was registered in Taiwan. Camera Models that start with the letters DS are Digital SLR's (DSlr). It extends the use of a existing Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Module to a new DSLR Model number. That could be anything, the extensions like this often happen 6 months to a year before new model announcements.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 28, 2016)

AJ said:


> _ the first Canon lens with an LCD display built-in_
> 
> Why? I wonder what it'll display?



One would think it would post the range to target and near and far limits of the DOF for the given aperture, like the recent Zeiss Batis lenses for the Sony mount shown below.

It's a fine idea that simplifies reading distance / aperture scales (would be visible in the dark as well), but I don't know why they'd do this on Canon's cheapest long zoom. This strikes me as an upgrade, not a downmarket move.

- A


----------



## AJ (Aug 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > _ the first Canon lens with an LCD display built-in_
> ...



The lens communicates the focal length and focusing distance to the body, right? The body should be able to do DOF calculations. Why now show this info on the camera body's screen?

Maybe there are buttons and menus to select IS modes, focus limiting, etc, like on a shotshoe flash?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 28, 2016)

A Rebel SL2 would be very good, while Canon does not decide to take seriously the EOS-M.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > _ the first Canon lens with an LCD display built-in_
> ...



My two cents: no STM lens (nor the new Nano USM powered 18-135mm) has had any kind of distance marker on the barrel. A traditional focus window won't work, because the MF ring isn't really connected to anything (other than the focus motor). An electronic readout could solve that.

I agree with the poster that mentioned the biggest threat is to undercut 70-300L sales, though I'm sure this lens won't be weathersealed or have anything close to the build quality. But if it is anything like what I saw with the 18-135mm, it will be uber fast to focus. If it also had strong optical performance, it will be a real winner.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 28, 2016)

Wouldn't surprise me if the 6DII goes up market and we get a "cheap" 8D FF body. So Canon will offer four FF bodies like Nikon, except I suspect the potential 8D will come in well below the Nikon D610. (Or by that time it will probably be the D630).


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 28, 2016)

I have a hard time understanding where a 70-300 IS USM II is marketed to. On the consumer side, you have the 55-250 STM which is close to the IQ of the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L on its own without the build quality. Then there is the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L. If you have gone full frame and can afford that, aren't you going to pay for better build quality of the L lenses there? It just seems a little pointless in Canon's current line up and that they could have filled bigger holes. How about some fast wide options for crop?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> I have a hard time understanding where a 70-300 IS USM II is marketed to. On the consumer side, you have the 55-250 STM which is close to the IQ of the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L on its own without the build quality. Then there is the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L. If you have gone full frame and can afford that, aren't you going to pay for better build quality of the L lenses there? It just seems a little pointless in Canon's current line up and that they could have filled bigger holes. How about some fast wide options for crop?


A 70-300mm IS II will not compete with the "L" model, as this should cost around US $ 600. This updated 70-300 is intended for users of "full frame low cost" as the 6D, who will buy your first lens tele, and not content with the terrible Canon 75-300mm.

I would have also preferred new wide angle lenses, but Canon does not seem interested in offering the EF-S high end lenses.


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 29, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time understanding where a 70-300 IS USM II is marketed to. On the consumer side, you have the 55-250 STM which is close to the IQ of the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L on its own without the build quality. Then there is the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300L. If you have gone full frame and can afford that, aren't you going to pay for better build quality of the L lenses there? It just seems a little pointless in Canon's current line up and that they could have filled bigger holes. How about some fast wide options for crop?
> ...


I am just saying that anyone that wants a body like a 6D or even a 7D is going to want lenses with better build than a consumer grade 70-300 aren't they? Unless you make it nice, but if you make it too nice then why not by the L instead?


----------



## Tangent (Aug 29, 2016)

I'll weigh in with those who speculate that there will be a new entry level FF to go with the non-L 24-105 and the rumored revamped non-L 70-300. I can't see why they would be developing these lenses unless they have a body in the works to go with them.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

+1 on the 6D users (or users of a future even cheaper new starter FF rig if the 6D moves upmarket) going after this, but I think this lens also has legs with crop users. Some may say the 55-250 IS STM is the great value in crop, but this new 70-300 should offer a fair amount of feature-value above the 55-250:


Metal mount, generally better build quality
For stills, USM focusing is far better if you are chasing varmits / birds / kids at distance than STM
I presume this new version will have FTM mechanical focusing (no focus by wire like the 55-250)
Going to EF gives you some degree of future-proofing if you decide to take the plunge to FF

Generally if you stack things up on features, items are somewhat logically price-pointed / tiered in the market. $500-600 for a new version of this lens makes a lot of sense.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

I am also curious to see if Canon will finally obsolete the 75-300 lenses that no one ever talks about. At present, Canon produces and sells:

EF 70-300 L IS USM
EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM III
EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III

I just don't know who would slap those last two bone cheap, soft as cottonballs zooms on a $1500+ FF camera.

And I don't see those lenses having much purchase in the crop landscape either. Unlike my prior example with the 70-300 (that this thread is about) offering some value over the EF-S 55-250, in the case of the two blue lenses above, the EF-S outperforms the two 75-300s. The USM on the USM version is the only 'crop-bait' worth considering, which doesn't matter as much if the IQ is that poor.

So if it doesn't appeal to FF users and it crop people have better options, why the hell does Canon still sell these?

- A


----------



## AJ (Aug 29, 2016)

I think the 70-300 USM is also popular among crop shooters. Those who refuse to buy crop lenses for future upgrade considerations, and also backyard birders who want that extra 50 mm over the 55-250.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

One last question -- why lose this lens in the thunderous wake of the 5D4 and the two L zooms and release it this year?

Why not delay this release and time it with the 6D2, which would be perfectly logical to pair it with?

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 29, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...
> The lens will be equipped with Nano-USM, the latest IS and will be heavier than the current model. Expect a big optical upgrade too we’re told.
> ...


All sounds reasonable and the "big optical upgrade" is an absolute no-brainer if you look at the optical quality of the competition already available for almost a decade. Canon must move ahead here otherwise the to be expected pricing will make it DOA.



ahsanford said:


> I am also curious to see if Canon will finally obsolete the 75-300 lenses that no one ever talks about.
> ...


+1
Do you know if those are still in production ??? or only still on (Canon) stock and nobody wants them :


----------



## Woody (Aug 29, 2016)

Current 70-300 f/4-5.6 non-L IS weighs 630 g.
The 70-200 f/4L IS weighs 760 g.

If the weight of the 70-300 replacement gets near the 70-200 f/4L, the appeal may not be there for me.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I am also curious to see if Canon will finally obsolete the 75-300 lenses that no one ever talks about.
> ...



I've seen a few photographers with an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (IIRC w/ USM) attached to crop cameras, who bought it because its cheaper / longer than the EF-S 55-250mm lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I am also curious to see if Canon will finally obsolete the 75-300 lenses that no one ever talks about. At present, Canon produces and sells:
> 
> EF 70-300 L IS USM
> EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
> ...



1. Around here, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III is cheaper than the EF-S 55-250 

[Its 15% cheaper than the EF-S 55-250mm IS II on my favorite shop.]

2. Some people choose the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM for the focal length advantage, AFAIK people who aren't savvy enough to compare IQ on the Internet.

3. Canon sells those lenses because there's money in it.


Which reminds me - a local shop sold a GigaPan + rebel camera + EF 75-300mm III. The buyer wanted the cheapest combo to take high res panoramas of villages in Judea and Samaria at different points in time, so he could show how much they've grown. He doesn't need IS, and IQ requirements are as humble as 'make out urban features, such as houses and streets'.


----------



## dufflover (Aug 29, 2016)

Optically I might be interested in lens. I already have a 70-200/2.8 II with TCs and a 100-400, but bloody hell with my aviation photography and vantage points I just happen to be in a spot where 100mm min is occasionally just too long, but using the 70-200 is much shorter than 400 max; and using a TC to extend it puts the minimum back to 100mm anyway! (Ideally I'd love a 70-300/4). And even if it's not as good as their "L" (I wouldn't expect it to be since it's about product line up) the decent sharpness of new lenses in general is probably good enough for me.

But it did just occur to me that being non-L I doubt it will have the Mode 2 panning IS which is really handy for the slow shutter speed part of aviation photography.


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


The 35/2 IS is a good exception to the example I mentioned but the 50 STM is not really that market. The only reason it is now is because the 50/1.4 is so far overdo for an update that 6D 7D type users buy the STM instead.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> The 35/2 IS is a good exception to the example I mentioned but the 50 STM is not really that market. The only reason it is now is because the 50/1.4 is so far overdo for an update that 6D 7D type users buy the STM instead.



Yeah... Please don't get me started on that last point. 

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



There is the prime trio of 24, 28 & 35 IS, all excellent lenses both optically and in their construction. They also go very well on crop. I was disappointed when I tried the new 50 STM on FF: at f/2.8 it was nowhere near where I thought it would be mid frame, never mind edge. Also the 40 Pancake is very good on FF, but the lack of any feel in the manual focus and no distance window can be an issue occasionally. The 50/1.4 is a pretty good lens, especially stopped down a little, but the package is well overdue for modernising. 

The 70-300 non L was a strange lens IMO: really quite brilliant at 70 - 100, and really quite crap beyond that. Surprisingly so for the price.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> There is the prime trio of 24, 28 & 35 IS, all excellent lenses both optically and in their construction. They also go very well on crop. I was disappointed when I tried the new 50 STM on FF: at f/2.8 it was nowhere near where I thought it would be mid frame, never mind edge. Also the 40 Pancake is very good on FF, but the lack of any feel in the manual focus and no distance window can be an issue occasionally. The 50/1.4 is a pretty good lens, especially stopped down a little, but the package is well overdue for modernising.



Yeah, the 24/28/35 primes fit the perfect middle/'premium-but-not-best' for a lens:


Great build quality compared to the sloppy plastic crap of old (still a lot of plastic but very solid, think small version of the 100L minus the weathersealing)
IS
FTM _mechanical_ focusing (none of that focus by wire crap)
Proper ring USM for reliable / quick / consistent AF
Internal focusing (no telescoping bits when you turn a focus ring -- bad for dirt/dust/moisture ingress, also no focus motor is loaded when you turn off the camera and jam it in your bag like with many cheaper externally focusing lenses) 
Not big, not heavy, not conspicuous. A very nice compromise in speed/size for street work, especially the 35mm f/2 IS USM.

I -- if you just climbed out from under a rock and missed the last 4 years -- want to see those 24/28/35 improvements across the entire non-L prime line of glass. Take my money.

The 50m f/1.8 STM -- as nice of a value as it is -- is still in the budget bucket for very good reasons. Other than slightly better build quality than the eggshell house of cards the 50 f/1.8 II was, that lens gets none of the good stuff above, and as Sporgon mentioned, it's good but not remotely great optically.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> And the replacement for the 50/1.4 (which is not an "L" lens) will not be an "L" lens either.



Agree there will be a 50mm non-L that is better than the 50 f/1.8 STM and will replace the 50 f/1.4 USM, but there could be more to it than that.

Canon may not offer a 50 f/1.4 IS USM in non-L as it may steal some business from the 50 f/1.2L. So this forum is littered (as I'm sure you know) with all sorts of 'future state of 50' threads. So you might get any of the following near future states:

50 1.8 STM / 50 1.4 USM II / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> this makes the most sense to protect L sales

50 1.8 STM / 50 1.8 IS USM / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> slightly nerf the IS USM lens' max aperture to keep it small and light, and also to keep the 1.2L attractive.

50 1.8 STM / 50 1.8 IS STM / 50 1.2L (or subsequent update) --> I will row a boat to Japan and punch the idiot who takes my mid-level USM away. Madness.

50 1.8 STM / (either the first or second option above for the non-L) / 50 1.2L AND a new L expressly built to go pound for pound with the Otus 55mm, Sigma 50 Art, etc. This would probably be f/1.4 and weigh six tons. I could see it being sold alongside the the f/1.2L as a completely different animal for different photographers.

...but I think I'm glaringly OT at this point. Apologies.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > And the replacement for the 50/1.4 (which is not an "L" lens) will not be an "L" lens either.
> ...



My guess is that Canon are waiting until they have developed a good 50/1.4 IS, not wanting to go down the slower f/1.8 route. After all, on FF 50 mil has been out of fashion for some time, only coming back with the likes of the Sigma and Otus. So I think we will see it, in the 24,28,35 IS form, but we won't get it until Canon have got it right.


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yes I see where you are going with this. Primes are kind of special in this as there are only the 200,300, and 400L primes that have different levels in price separating them from one market to another. Zooms have more L options in different market segments. And for me personally, I don't mind spending more on zooms that are going to be more used and more versitile for my needs. So as a person in the 7D/6D market, I want the better build in a zoom because I am more likely to use a zoom in weather where I need better sealing than I would a prime.

The problem I have is how Canon will release a non L 70-300 that doesn't totally kill 70-300L sales. Heck, the 55-250 STM IQ is right up there with the 70-300L now. I guess they just make a lens with good IQ but really cheap build like the 55-250 STM.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> The problem I have is how Canon will release a non L 70-300 that doesn't totally kill 70-300L sales. Heck, the 55-250 STM IQ is right up there with the 70-300L now. I guess they just make a lens with good IQ but really cheap build like the 55-250 STM.



The 35 f/2 IS lens outperformed the 35L I when it came out, but I"m not convinced it stole sales from it.

For 70-300 lenses, of course, it's a different animal as it will not be slower than the L lens. So it depends on the features the new non-L gets. If it has internal focusing, peppy USM, and improved build quality, the only thing it would lack compared to the L is weathersealing. It could sell very well.

- A


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > And the replacement for the 50/1.4 (which is not an "L" lens) will not be an "L" lens either.
> ...



How about 50/1.8 STM, 50/1.4L (build and priced similar to 100L maybe just slightly cheaper), and then a new 50/1.2 IS with non plastic build around $1800?


----------



## FECHariot (Aug 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I have is how Canon will release a non L 70-300 that doesn't totally kill 70-300L sales. Heck, the 55-250 STM IQ is right up there with the 70-300L now. I guess they just make a lens with good IQ but really cheap build like the 55-250 STM.
> ...



I have no duobt it would sell very well, but it would kill the L's sales. So how is Canon going to limp its performance to not do that is my question. At that point, where does it fit in the current line up?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> I have no duobt it would sell very well, but it would kill the L's sales. So how is Canon going to limp its performance to not do that is my question. At that point, where does it fit in the current line up?



Canon could have tricks up its sleeve:


Nerf the new non-L 70-300 with nano USM that is slower than full blown ring-type USM or only give it a very basic IS on/off setup compared to the L offering different IS modes.
Offer a new 70-300L that crushes the non-L with better IQ, better IS (and possibly 1.4x extender compatibility?), like what Canon just did with the 35L II vs. the 35 f/2 IS USM -- it's a little too soon to do this, however, as the 70-300L is only 6 years old.
Canon could also price the non-L a little high, say $699, to protect L sales.

- A


----------



## haggie (Aug 29, 2016)

In this thread I have read several replies that want to communicate that it it is unwise for Canon to make this new 70-300 non-L lens .... well, useable.

In an ealier thread "A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]" I wrote about my experiences with owners of the 'old' 70-300 non-L lens because I was then looking for a Canon lens with a bit more reach than my present 55-250 STM but in particular a bit faster AF than that lens. I wrote:

" .... _I have spoken several people in the last year with the Canon 70-300 non-L, and both its AF-speed and IQ is not to modern standards at all. Probably Canon's innovations with STM are partly to blame for that. And innitial reviews of the nano-USM seem to be even a step better for de AF-speed. Of course, IQ is a per-lens matter, based on how Canon choses to market the lens.

But there is another aspect of the present 70-300 non-L I would like to bring up. Two of the people I spoke bought the 70-300 non-L as part of a package with a body or another Canon-lens. Both were thinking that with Canon they could not be mistaken, even although it is not that cheap (and almost twice the price of the 55-250 STM). And Canon's own words speak about good IQ and fast AF. For them it was a great disappointment that the Canon 70-300 non-L could not focus on playing children (not eratically running around, just slowly moving as any kid does), pets, etc.. These 'normal' customers are disappointed greatly: not in this lens, but in Canon as a brand! 
So perhaps Canon manages to earn a lot on sales of an old design that (new) customers keep buying because it routinely gets packaged with other Canon products (e.g. around the holidays), but apparently the management of Canon does not realise that Canon is eating from it's own good name here. After this experience, both of these customers (owners of a Canon DSLR-body) will not automatically chose a Canon-lens next time, they told me!
The third was a guy I met at an airshow. It was my first time at an airshow after many years, so I started talking to him when I saw his camera. With his Canon 6D (a full frame body) and 70-300 non-L, he thought that he had bought a nice combination for shooting planes. That was not the case in reality, he told me. Despite what Canon says on its website and what he believed to be true. He felt a fool.

So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.

Therefore I can only hope for Canon's sake that this rumors (also) is about a new EF 70-300 IS (nano-)USM with a decent IQ over the whole range but in particular at the long end. Because after all, that is where most tele-zooms are most often used: at or around the long end. And where they are judged in reality_."

I think this also explains where the sales of this to-be-expected 70-300 non-L will be high. Note that the folks that semi-pro shoot airshows or BIF, or other niche-parts of action photography, will NOT buy this new 70-300 non-L. These types of photography require a very high keep-percentage and therefore are reserved for highly capable camera bodies like the 7D Mk II, 5D and 1D, together with L-series lenses. But it will be bought by those who want a *useable* 70-300 lens to photograph kids and animals and anything moving in the real world they live in. 

And yes, that would probably mean they can also shoot an airplane if they happen to go to an airshow once a year. But it would be very unwise of Canon to deny them that - as a 'punishment' for not buying FF-body and/or an L-quality lens. Because then, the DSLR could very well be not interesting any more for many. 
The first time I heared "my phone takes better pictures there than my expensive DSLR" I did not take it seriously. But I heared it very often. Perhaps this has also reached Canon, because from this forum I understand they have an elaborate system of market research. 

I dare writing this so directly because since I wrote the passage that I quoted above, I heave taken every opportunity to ask every person I see with a Canon DSLR and a zoomlens (friends, collegues, strangers I see on holiday, in the zoo, in the parc, etc.) 4 things:
(1) what lenses they have (in particular if I see a zoom lens like 70-200, 70-300L, 70-300 non-L, 55-250, 100-400), (2) why they bought it, (3) if they think it is good for what they bought it for and (4) their personal conclusions fot the future. 

I did this to 'test' the positive descriptions that were written in several threads about both the old 70-300 non-L and the old 75-300 - often with a lot of conviction. 
This has shown me that: it would be very unwise of Canon to give the new 70-300 non-L a slow AF or bad IQ out of some fear boys and girls in Sales have written down. because with slow AF or less IQ than the 55-250 STM, the new 70-300 non-L will be unuseable _for what many people want it for_ and that will lead to more of the frustration about the brand 'Canon' that I regularly heared (although not always agreed with because of a lack of knowledge by the persons that I spoke). Canon will lose many DSLR-users that would otherwise keep buying this and other lenses and (replacement-)camera bodies.

Perhaps Canon has seen this structural scepsis that I have whitnessed and therefore intends to market a lens with a good IQ (which indeed means a big improvement over the old 70-300 non-L) and very fast nano-USM. Despite what some replies in this thread seem to suggest, in my experiende this will boost confidence in Canon and thus the profit of Canon, both in the near as in the bit distant future. Even to the market leader that will a be good setting to cash on.


----------



## dsut4392 (Aug 30, 2016)

Far from pointless as far as I'm concerned (6D shooter). Size matters, and "build quality of the L Lenses" often translates to doubling the size and weight. If canon can improve the optical quality to L levels, but go on a major diet by sacrificing some durability and weatherproofing, I'll be all over it. Throw in the price difference and make it one of the standard offerings and it's a no brainer, thrash the lens until it dies then just pick up another one at your nearest retailer. Most of my photography is either travel or wilderness. The weight difference between the 70-300 L and non-L is equivalent to a day's food, or snow vs summer sleeping bag - being there vs not being there. Quite a number of similarly inclined friends have already left Canon for other platforms (e.g. Sony FF or Olympus MFT) purely on size & weight issues, I only hold out because I like the FF look and don't like EVFs. Give me better IQ in consumer weight glass and Canon keeps me as a customer a bit longer.



FECHariot said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2016)

haggie said:


> This has shown me that: it would be very unwise of Canon to give the new 70-300 non-L a slow AF or bad IQ out of some fear boys and girls in Sales have written down. because with slow AF or less IQ than the 55-250 STM, the new 70-300 non-L will be unuseable _for what many people want it for_ and that will lead to more of the frustration about the brand 'Canon' that I regularly heared (although not always agreed with because of a lack of knowledge by the persons that I spoke). Canon will lose many DSLR-users that would otherwise keep buying this and other lenses and (replacement-)camera bodies.
> 
> Perhaps Canon has seen this structural scepsis that I have whitnessed and therefore intends to market a lens with a good IQ (which indeed means a big improvement over the old 70-300 non-L) and very fast nano-USM. Despite what some replies in this thread seem to suggest, in my experiende this will boost confidence in Canon and thus the profit of Canon, both in the near as in the bit distant future. Even to the market leader that will a be good setting to cash on.



I agree with the general tone of your comments but I think you have missed a very important point. 
The AF on the non-L need only be a fraction below the performance of the L to make the L a worthwhile upgrade for serious amateurs who shoot things like airshows. That way Canon can still keep both market sectors very happy. 
As for build, I have seen similar comments from pros about the 50mm - some say the image quality of the 1.8 plastic fantastic is so close to the f1.4 that they buy the f1.8 and treat it as disposable; others look on the f1.4 as far more durable and worth the money in build quality alone. As long as Canon get the balance just right they can improve the non-L substantially and still sell both models quite successfully. 

And all they need do is add superior weather proofing on the L version and the market is secure. 

The internet is packed with people who believe that if a photo is on the internet they are entitled to use it, and this attitude is permeating customers of goods as well. More and more of them seem to think that they should be able to buy L-quality gear for consumer gear prices and moan like heck when they don't get it. 
I have yet to be convince that any manufacturer gives better value for money than anyone else when you look at a camera+lens system. 

.


----------



## haggie (Aug 30, 2016)

Mikehit wrote "_I have yet to be convince that any manufacturer gives better value for money than anyone else when you look at a camera+lens system_.".

I fully agree there, being a user of Canon equipment since the A-1 and T-90. 
If I gave a different impression, that is my mistake.

On the other hand, as dsut4392, even very long standing relationships can come to an end due to frustration and disappointment - or due to comparison with something (/someone?) else that seems better .....


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 2, 2016)

This lens really needs an optical upgrade. I sold mine a couple of years ago due to poor sharpness. Also, the image stabilization didn't seem to help as much as I thought it should.

I replaced it with a 75-200 F/4 L that seems to work fairly well.


----------

