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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2017)

```
<p>The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP:</strong></p>
<p>The technology upgrades appearing in this lens make it potentially a better choice than even some higher-priced lenses for at least some applications including video. Those already having a high end telephoto zoom lens in their kit may still be interested in having a light weight, low cost alternative available for casual photography opportunities. The attractively-designed 70-300 IS II features great AF and IS systems, but it is the excellent price-to-performance ratio that makes it an easy choice and worthwhile addition to a great many photographers’ kits. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281379-REG/canon_0571c002aa_ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## SkynetTX (Jan 5, 2017)

Canon states again that the lens is capable of FTM. In my opinion FTM means that you can turn the focusing ring when the camera is off or the lens are not even attached to it. Therefore no lens equipped with STM or NanoUSM motors – focus-by-wire technology – support it. I might will never use manual focusing with a wide angle or telephoto (zoom) lens but the feature MUST exist just in case I'll do.
As I do not shoot videos with my camera I don't need nor the smoothness neither the silentness of focusing NanoUSM provides. I hope that no more lenses will be equipped with FBW technology unless released as EF-V lenses for videographers. The LCD screen that replaced the mechanical distance window is totally useless as well.


----------



## AJB (Jan 5, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Canon states again that the lens is capable of FTM. In my opinion FTM means that you can turn the focusing ring when the camera is off or the lens are not even attached to it. Therefore no lens equipped with STM or NanoUSM motors – focus-by-wire technology – support it. I might will never use manual focusing with a wide angle or telephoto (zoom) lens but the feature MUST exist just in case I'll do.
> As I do not shoot videos with my camera I don't need nor the smoothness neither the silentness of focusing NanoUSM provides. I hope that no more lenses will be equipped with FBW technology unless released as EF-V lenses for videographers. The LCD screen that replaced the mechanical distance window is totally useless as well.


Why is it ever useful to you to be able to manual focus whilst the camera is off or the lens isn't attached? I think it's effectively Full Time, as manual focus can be used any time it'd be useful.

Also, granted the LCD screen doesn't do anything useful that a mechanical distance scale wouldn't, but I don't think the mk1 had any sort of distance scale. Surely an LCD one is better than none at all if it doesn't add too much to the cost. I imagine a mechanical one might cost a lot more.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 5, 2017)

AJB said:


> Why is it ever useful to you to be able to manual focus whilst the camera is off or the lens isn't attached? I think it's effectively Full Time, as manual focus can be used any time it'd be useful.



Likely he means you have to "wake the camera up" to manually focus. Can be irritating.

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.


----------



## SeanS (Jan 5, 2017)

AJB said:


> Why is it ever useful to you to be able to manual focus whilst the camera is off or the lens isn't attached? I think it's effectively Full Time, as manual focus can be used any time it'd be useful.
> 
> Also, granted the LCD screen doesn't do anything useful that a mechanical distance scale wouldn't, but I don't think the mk1 had any sort of distance scale. Surely an LCD one is better than none at all if it doesn't add too much to the cost. I imagine a mechanical one might cost a lot more.



Actually, I have come across a scenario where not having traditional FTM focus was a hindrance - Light Blaster use.

When mounting a lens to a Light Blaster, you must focus the lens manually in order to obtain focus on your projection surface. Moving the rig forward and away from your surface can also help you obtain focus, but with the size of the projection being affected. 

Granted, few people would find it practical to use this narrow aperture zoom with the Light Blaster, but... it is a real problem with the EF-S 24mm f/2.8, EF 40mm f/2.8 and EF 85mm f/1.2L II which would otherwise be well-suited for the application.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> 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.


----------



## AJB (Jan 5, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Likely he means you have to "wake the camera up" to manually focus. Can be irritating.
> 
> 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.



It is annoying the the focus gets lost when adjusting zoom with the lens "asleep", but he doesn't mention that. Adjusting manual focus with the lens asleep could be useful I guess with back button focussing, but with AF on half shutter press I don't see any point adjusting MF before half pressing the shutter anyway. I certainly don't see the need to MF with the lens off the camera, which he explicitly says is necessary for FTM.

Agreed about the disappointing review. The mk1 was indeed very poor at the long end, and after trying one I ended up getting a 70-200 f4 IS instead. It'll be a real shame if the mk2 hasn't improved there.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 5, 2017)

I see this update in the same way that the 50 F1.8ii replaced by the 50 STM:

Best mechanics, focus system, image quality, (only at 300mm), and quite nice price.
Unfortunately, the image was slightly worse at 70mm in this update.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 5, 2017)

AJB said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Likely he means you have to "wake the camera up" to manually focus. Can be irritating.
> ...



you must be seeing a different review than I did.

for a $549.00 70-300mm telephoto zoom, it's a very nice lens.

if you want better, there's an L lens waiting for you.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 5, 2017)

mrsfotografie said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 5, 2017)

jd7 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


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


----------



## hubie (Jan 6, 2017)

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


----------



## Woody (Jan 6, 2017)

I used TDP comparison tool to check performance of the newly released 70-300 Mark II lens against the ancient 70-200 f/4L IS. The disparity in image quality is incredible.


----------



## dufflover (Jan 6, 2017)

Pity about the image quality. It's not "bad" but was hoping it would be a noticeable improvement over the old model.
I suppose my ideal lens would be a 70-300 f/4 or similar (to fill the annoying gap I have with choosing a 70-200 or 100-400 lol)


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 6, 2017)

@woody: I have done the same, because I bought a 70-200 4 IS second hand for half the new price in mint quality after waiting 10 years to upgrade my non-IS. 
If you decide something, situation changes meaning a new lens with much better quality at the same price is available - Murphy sends greetings. But in this case it is not the case.
I was very satisfied with the strong and very consistent IQ of the 70-200 4 IS which will help me to use the full potential of EOS M, and in the future perhaps EOS M5 or a high res full frame body.

@dufflover: See above - I chose the f/4 non-IS variant of the 70-200 lenses 11 years ago and upgraded recently to the IS version for: IS, wather sealing, better flare resistance/flare patterns.
A 70-300 f/4 would be a dream lens but I am shure it will be a 2 kg lens and that leads to MY decision for the 70-200 4 IS: It is light enough to use it hours holding it in your hand. I wouldn't accept much more mass - so 70-300 L, the f/2.8 variants of 70-200 and 100-400ii aren't the right solution for ME.
On the other hand, there are 150-600mm solutions and maybe Canon will produce one at reasonable price with reasonable IQ - 70-200 for everyday-use, 150-600 when needed ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 6, 2017)

hubie said:


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



That can be really useful for travel purposes. I don't usually take the best and biggest with me when I travel and it can be comforting to reduce the total weight and value of the equipment you carry depending on the destination. In this way I have a compliment of lenses that I consider my 'travel kit'. I choose 3 to 4 of these as I see best fit. Sometimes I will take an L lens as a primary but almost never a white lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 6, 2017)

dufflover said:


> Pity about the image quality. It's not "bad" but was hoping it would be a noticeable improvement over the old model.
> I suppose my ideal lens would be a 70-300 f/4 or similar (to fill the annoying gap I have with choosing a 70-200 or 100-400 lol)



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


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2017)

as so often, canon did the bare minimum incremental update ... just enough to defend 70-300 IS II against cheaper thirdparty option - namely Tamron 70-300 VC. of course i would have preferred more IQ improvement rather than useless LCD gadget, but (stupid) Canon ... 

however ... EF 70-300 IS Mk. II provides a viable option for a (reasonably) lightweight, "all original Canon" (AF, IS, mount protocol), consumer/BUDGET dual-zoom FF kit: 6D + 24-105 (non L) + 70-300 IS II. Add 50/1.8 STM for low light and subject isolation if desired. 

fully competitive with Nikon D610, 24-85, 70-300 VR (+ 50/1.8). 

more capable kits are available, but not at entry level price point: around 2000 € using cash-back/discounts and smart shopping.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2017)

I use MF for framing, If I like what I see then I hit the BBAF, if things are happing really quickly I'll pop a shot off without AF. I've also got the fine ground focus screen so I have a decent chance of manual focussing.

What I hate is picking up the camera, turning the MF ring and then realising I've got the 50 on there so it won't play... it's also so much slower than my ringUSM lenses.

I won't pay more than £100 for a lens without full time manual focus on it.. not unless it offers something exceptional in other ways such as the 85 f1.2, but I'd still hate the FBW and bitch about it... I certainly see it as a substantial negative point enough to let in a propper full time manual AF off brand lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2017)

interesting. i come from the exactly opposite corner. i have not used manual focussing since my first AF SLR camera. i would be happy if Canon would launch a range of AF-only lenses. Decent IQ, as compact as possible, no focus ring, no mf gear, robust build, full wheathersealing, robo-assembled, low(er) price. ideally for a great FF mirrorless system.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2017)

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 (Jan 6, 2017)

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 (Jan 6, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Jan 6, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> 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 (Jan 6, 2017)

hubie said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



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 (Jan 7, 2017)

jd7 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



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 (Jan 8, 2017)

jd7 said:


> 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 (Jan 8, 2017)

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 (Jan 9, 2017)

mrsfotografie said:


> 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 (Jan 9, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Jan 9, 2017)

dufflover said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x = 98-280/4
> ...



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 (Jan 9, 2017)

mrsfotografie said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

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 (Jan 11, 2017)

haggie said:


> 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 (Jan 12, 2017)

haggie said:


> 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 (Jan 19, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


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.


----------

