# A new new Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ?



## haggie (May 22, 2016)

When I replied to the rumor about a new _*Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM *_from over a year ago, I got a pop-up message saying that the last reply was over 45 days ago and something about starting a new thread. Being new in the forum, I did not want to do that at first but because there has been no reply to my (too) elaborate text, I have drawn the conclusion that apparently the proposed new thread is the way to go. 

At present my tele-zoom is the _Canon 55-250 IS STM_. It is nice for travel, being so light and compact. But the image quality is not superb, it was enough for what I wanted when I bought it. However, recently I have developed interest in bird and airplane photography, and then my 55-250 IS STM falls short. The AF is pretty fast, but the image quality is not enough.So I have been looking around for a (Canon) lens with better image quality and a bit more reach. 

I have considered several lenses and concluded the following.
- Canon EF 70-300 L: optically fine, but (very) slow AF. Usefull for travel (apparently much better image quality than my 55-250), but unusable for faster subjects.
- Canon EF 70-300 non-L: optically mediocre (and worse than 55-250 STM), AF slower than the 55-250 STM. Although much more expensive, test results show the image quality is worse than my 55-250. 
- Canon EF 100-400 II: optically great and very fast AF. This new lens is the ideal lens for what I want ........... but that price tag. 
- A Canon EF 200-600 seems to be on the way, but probably 600 mm is too long for me. And no doubt the price tag will be around that of the 100-400 II (despite posts about a lower price that I regard as wishfull thinking).

In short: I need a tele zoom of around 70-300 mm with better image quality than the present Canon 70-300 non-L and with better AF-speed than the present Canon 70-300 non-L. But the prices of the L-series are a bit extreme for me, because I do not need lenses with a build quality that even allows them to be used as a hammer.

If the 70-300 non-L was more modern, that would probably meet my needs. And I happen to know the needs of many other Canon owners. The image quality of the present 70-300 non-L is mediocre. Considering it is an EF-lens it could even be called 'bad'. And its AF is slow, even for photography around the house. Moving family, animals and children are quickly too much for this lens. This is not strange, because this lens is over 10 years on the market, which means its optical and mechanical design is based on technology even older than that. Perhaps the strange thing is that Canon has not replaced it with an up-to-date version.

On February 3, 2015 a rumor about a new *non-L, non-DO 70-300 f/4.0-5.6* appeared in the article "New 50mm & 70-300mm Coming Soon? [CR2]". And on May 12, 2015 article "Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS Update Information [CR2]" detailed this a bit further: "_that the new EF 70-300 IS will have a new USM motor as well as “some feature that one of Canon’s competitors have announced recently”. What that “feature” is, we’re not sure. The source goes on to say that the lens, whenever it comes to market, is a very good upgrade to the current version_.".

Reading this, with the new Canon EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM that came out with the Canon 80D in mind, I think it makes sense to assume that the "_new USM motor_" is the nano-USM from this EF-S 18-135. The text "_a very good upgrade to the current version_" seems to indicate a much improved image quality over the present 70-300 non-L. If this rumor were true, this could indicate a zoom lens that is wanted by many of Canon's existing clients that I know.

But so far, and we are a year further now, no such lens has appeared. And even worse, there has been no news about it since over a year. This is starting to make me a bit oncomfortable. 

I have been willing to wait for a Canon-lens like mentioned in this rumor, but recently I started wondering if I am waiting in vain...... And I have read that there apparently are several excellent third party lenses available. 

And a bit later I even started to doubt if Canon will ever market such a lens. The reason for this is that I regularly read that Canon routinely produces lenses with lower specs than customers would like for a give product and sometimes even than the price suggests. I am not in a position to verify such accusations (sometimes it looks like bashing a large company like Canon), but I know it is quite possible that the small army of sales, marketing, PR and managing people give priority to considerations that aim at everything to get the most money from its clients - except the product itself.


I have seen many subjects where it became clear that there are people here that are better aware of Canon's plans and reasons. Perhaps anybody can help me with my question: Is it likely that the rumored EF 70-300 non-L lens will appear shortly, or should I abandon Canon lenses and (for the first time in 3 decades) buy a non-Canon lens?

PS	Just to make it clear, I am not one of those people that want Canon to manufacture the perfect zoom lens at almost no cost, just because I would like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2016)

haggie said:


> However, recently I have developed interest in bird and airplane photography, and then my 55-250 IS STM falls short. The AF is pretty fast, but the image quality is not enough.So I have been looking around for a (Canon) lens with better image quality and a bit more reach.



For a non-L lens, the IQ of the 55-250 STM is actually quite good. Practically speaking, if 250mm isn't a sufficiently long focal length, 300mm will likely also fall short. 

Basically, you're at the end of the 'budget' reach (APS-C, 250mm), and the next meaningful step up is a 100-400mm lens or a Tamron 150-600. 

While the 100-400 II improves a bit on the original, the latter can be bought used for ~$900, and that would be my recommendation in your situation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> You can always look at the Tamron 70-300



By all means, look:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The Tamron is on FF, which shows up as sharper than APS-C on this sort of test. Even with that advantage, the Tamron is mushy compared to the lens the OP is currently using. 

Or did you mean a different Tamron lens?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 22, 2016)

I agree with Neuro, which is 250mm short for your use, 300mm remains short.

The options 70-300 are capable of good quality at full frame but when used on APS-C bodies do not exceed the quality of the great 55-250 STM. Even the venerable 70-300L can not overcome it when used on APS-C. I doubt that a new 70-300 exceeds the image quality of the "L", but can cost around $ 600.

Yes, 100-400 L ii seems the ideal lens for your needs. If the price seems very high, a good substitute would be the venerable 400mm L. When photographing birds and airplanes in flight, the image stabilizer does not really miss 1/2000 speeds.


----------



## haggie (May 23, 2016)

Many thanks to all you guys for replying. 
It is clear to me that things are not very straightforward with what I want, and that Canon's present, 10-years old, 70-300 non-L is not much of a choise anyway. I even think: for nobody. :'(

And in the post "A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]" I just read more about thi subject of a _'new EF 70-300 non-L'_. Also there are a lot of my thoughts and additional facts and considerations.

So I keep hoping the _'new EF 70-300 non-L_ will appear shortly. 
Then it would still be in time for me. 8)


----------



## monkey44 (May 23, 2016)

THe comment about a resale 100/400 v1 is spot on. I shot with that lens for about ten years of more, and than bought the 100/400 v2 when it released. It's a superb lens, but the older version is no slouch either.

IF you're not shooting pro or high-level amateur for assignments or printing, that older version is certainly a winner still. NOTE: Some of those were a bit off, it seems, altho' the one I owned was pretty well built with no issues. So, if you look at one, check it out very carefully, or have a pro check it out for you before you buy it ... It will suit what you want very well, and for less money than anything new that comes out.

An option, save your bucks and buy the V2 -- you'll not regret that move. Good luck ...


----------



## j-nord (May 23, 2016)

Where are you getting 'slow AF' on the 70-300L? I disagree, it's quite fast. Certainly faster than older lenses like the 300L f4 IS.


----------



## haggie (May 23, 2016)

Aboven, j-nord asked me "_Where are you getting 'slow AF' on the 70-300L?_".

I saw tests with the 70-300 L 's focussing speed on the internet, and there it is less than half the speed that the new 100-400 II has. 

That in itself does not mean much, I realised, as the 100-400 II has been tested as an AF-speed Monster.

So I contacted a Canon representative (official), that answered me that for a camera body like the 70D the 100-400 II is the fastest, second the 55-250 STM (by only a small margin) and then the 70-300 L (by some margin). Some reservations were made about the camera body, and with a good lighting situation and a good contrast in the subject. I interpreted that as: ideal circumstances.

That also means that in less than ideal circumstances the 70-300 L may be better. 
But having experienced the AF speeed of the 55-250 STM, I doubt that (on an identical camera body!) the 70-300 L 's AF speed comes near the 55-250 STM 's.

The AF speed of the 70-300 non-L was admittedly slow..........


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

I have been to one of the larger stores in my country to have a good look at the EF 100-400 Mk II. I did that because there is unanimity about its stellar image quality (and build quality too). I have seen it and held it once last year, but I just wanted to be sure it might not be better to buy the 100-400 II now instead of waiting for a new EF 70-300 non-L of which there is no reliable release date yet.

I got the time to go outside and walk around with the lens mounted on my own camera for about 15 minutes and shoot some photos of 'targets of opportunity'. On my 70D, the EF 100-400 Mk II was a fine combination. So I think it will also be on the 80D that I just decided I will get in the (very) near future. I already checked the results against the same photos that I took with my present 55-250 STM. And they are indeed much better in detail and contrast. That confirms everything I have read about the 100-400 Mk II.

But I decided I will not buy it. ???
The reason is my specific situation, where I want better image quality and faster AF than the 55-250 STM offers - but that is just for the times I shoot birds and airplanes. 
In all other circumstances (landscape, architecture, vacation) I carry my camera bag with a camera body, the 10-18 STM, the 15-85 USM and some accessories. Add the quite large and heavy EF 100-400 Mk II to that, and the fun of carrying all that equipment around a whole day might might quickly grow less - possibly also for my wife  .

So I think I just wait and see if there will really be a new EF 70-300 non-L available soon. 
When that will have faster AF (perhaps nano-USM) and (far) better IQ than the present EF 70-300 non-L, I will get that. 
If it does not arrive, I will probably get a third party 70-300. But for me to doe that, I will have to look into those other brands thoroughly, because I never bought anything except Canon since buying my first 35mm SLR.

Perhaps funny for others to hear also, when I told the guy at the store my situation, he told me that since last year they sell very few EF 70-300 non-L lenses, but more from other brands. I don't know if that is noticeable for Canon in their sales figures, but it is remarkable that at least this store sees that sales for the present EF 70-300 non-L are going down. He told me they never advise that lens to any serious photographer, but only to 'starters'. He mentioned that image quality is the reason for that. And he also said that enthousiast photographers never ask for the EF 70-300 non-L. They either ask for the EF 70-300 L (travel, landscape) or the EF 100-400 I or II (sports, nature, airplanes).
This sort of confirmed my thoughts about the bigger picture I got from the usefulness to both customers AND to Canon of the present EF 70-300 non-L.


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2016)

if you were that impressed by the 100-400L and put off by the size vs rthe amount you would use it, and assuming price is not an issue, have you considered the 70-300L?
It really is a superb lens and a great compromise even for a lot of wildlife. It won't physically fit on the Canon tcs (but will fit on third-party TC). And although it is not much longer than the 55-250, the improved image quality and contrast of the 70-300L will enable you to crop which alone give you more options and makes it much more versatile.


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Mikehit asked "... _have you considered the 70-300L_?".
Thanks for your answer. And: yes, I have. 

But as I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the AF speed of the 70-300 L is not fast enough for photographing fast airplanes or eratically flying birds. I have read this on several websites on these subjects. 
I have also seen a test of the EF 70-300 L's AF speed on youtube, and that also showed a rather slow AF speed. And when I directly asked a Canon representative about fast AF speeds, the answer also confirmed this.

But I must honestly say that I also found some fantastic results of sports and birds with the EF 70-300 L. If it is sharp, the results of the 70-300 L are great due to its fantastic image quality. Exactly like you said.

When I have a replacement for my 55-250 STM (hopefully a new EF 70-300 non-L, but otherwise a third party lens in that range) and that proves to be not enough reach for bird photography, I might consider the EF 200-600 that has been mentioned as being close to coming at that time.
If I go out and shoot birds, I only carry one lens in a smaller bag. So then the weight and size is less important. But for my other interests the EF 100-400 Mk II is simply too big and heavy to carry around for days in a row.

But that will not be this year, first I will get the new 80D as a replacement for my 70D and a 70-300 as a replacement for my 55-250 STM (and as I said before, the latter will certainly not be the present EF 70-300 non-L). That is already enough money to spend.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> Mikehit asked "... _have you considered the 70-300L_?".
> Thanks for your answer. And: yes, I have.
> 
> But as I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the AF speed of the 70-300 L is not fast enough for photographing fast airplanes or eratically flying birds. I have read this on several websites on these subjects.
> ...



Have you used the 70-300L? I ask because you make the statement that the AF is not fast enough. I've used very few lenses with faster AF than the 70-300L. With all due respect, if you are missing action shots with the 70-300L, is isn't because the lens USM isn't fast enough. It is unlikely that the speed will be eclipsed by a much cheaper lens...and that Canon rep doesn't know what they are talking about if they said the 50-250 STM was faster than the 70-300L on a 70D. I've tested both side by side (owned both), and that simply isn't true. Focus speed is near instantaneous on the 70-300L. You've been given some flawed information.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 31, 2016)

P.S I also own the 100-400L II, and while it is amazingly fast to AF, the difference between it and the 70-300L is virtually undetectable.


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2016)

There are so many variables with an AF test not least what camera the person is using. 
If you have a 1Dx then I can imagine that a new 100-400 Mk ii may be quicker than a 70-300L on AF speed. The difference between the two when using a 7D2 or a 70D may well be much less or even negligible because of the limitations of the body. 

Also you can overcome a lot of issues by being careful what you shoot. An animal running towards you, or a bird flying directly towards you can tax even the best AF systems. Panning or shooting something on the turn is much easier. 

As an example, I have some kingsfishers that I like to catch as they go into the water - the immediacy of focus is crucial, the ability to track is less so. And is is that realisation that has made me understand where my priorities lie.

If in doubt you could hire a lens for a few days or you could buy from the internet and try it out. In UK for example you have the legal right to a 7-day unconditional return period and you only have to pay for return courier.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> The reason is my specific situation, where I want better image quality and faster AF than the 55-250 STM offers - but that is just for the times I shoot *birds and airplanes*.
> 
> And he also said that enthousiast photographers never ask for the EF 70-300 non-L. They either ask for the EF 70-300 L (travel, landscape) or the EF 100-400 I or II (sports, *nature, airplanes*).



Pointing out (again) that there's a reason those photographers are asking for a 100-400 for birds and airplanes – 300mm likely isn't long enough.




haggie said:


> But as I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the AF speed of the 70-300 L is not fast enough for photographing fast airplanes or eratically flying birds.



I find the 70-300L AF plenty fast for BIF, but I'm using a 1-series body.


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

I just tried to find the 2 youtube vids about the AF speed: one for the 100-400 Mk II and the one for the 70-300 L. 
I can only find the one for the 100-400 Mk II now. But I remember that both tests were done to test the maximum AF-speed that the lens can achieve (in combination with that camera body, clearly). 
And that is what I need to know and to compare: the maximum AF-speed of the lens itself. 
Of course there will be a difference in performance when switching between different bodies, but on the same body the difference between the 2 lenses is known then. 
The 100-400 Mk II was nearly twice as fast as the 70-300 L.

And I have used the 70-300 L to test it. I tested the 70-300 L on my 70D in comparison to my 55-250 STM (this was on an earlier occasion when I still included the 70-300 L on my wish-list and before I contacted Canon). There was a noticeable difference in AF speed from close-up to infinity and also the reverse direction. That was on the same subject and the same lighting, both lenses at their maximum zoom (250 and 300 respectively). The 55-250 was clearly faster on my 70D.

But I realise that this does not contradict the experiences described by _Dustin Abbott_, _Mikehit_ and _neuroanatomist_. If the subjects from their experiences remain below the 70-300 L's maximum AF-speed, then they would indeed not see any difference between those 2 great lenses. 

This fact is also the reason why so far I did not rent any lenses, because comparison based on results 'in the field' might not express the maximum AF-speed of the lens. But perhaps I should rent a 70-300 L though, just to get a better feel than that one test in and outside a store (10 minutes or so).

My guess was that for the 100-400 mark II they optimised the lens-design and USM-design to allow for very swift AF, whereas for the 70-300 L they did not. But that is just a guess, also because Canon markets the 70-300 L as an ideal general lens (once Canon used 'travel' on their web sie, but not any more) and the 100-400 Mark II specifically as a lens for action, sports and wildlife. So that suggests specific demands for a faster AF-system for the 100-400 mark II.

So perhaps the 70-300 L is back in the picture so i do not have to wait for the new EF 70-300 non-L.
Thanks for the replies that make me re-check what I thought were certainties.


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2016)

Frustrating isn't it? ;D

The 55-250 AF being quicker does not surprise me because there is less glass to move, but whether it is more assured and whether it tracks better depends on the algorithms and how the lens talks to the camera. For myself I would not get too hung up on maximum AF speed. 

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: "once you have excluded lenses that don't suit you the one that is left is the lens for you". The fastest and best lens is the 100-400 which is too big/heavy so comparing AF speed with the 70-300 is not really irrelevant.
Will a new model 70-300 non-L be faster AF than a 70-300L? I doubt it. Otherwise the original 70-300 would have had the same AF speed and accuracy as the 70-200 f4. 

In a similar vein: is the 70-300L acceptable on cost and/or size? If not then it is the new 70-300 on-L or the 55-250. Personally I think you will really like it (the L lens). 

Alternatively there is the 70-200 f4L + 1.4tc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2016)

Flying gull with the 70-300L...


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Thanks for your additional replies, _neuroanatomist_ and _Mikehit_.

By the way, I just did find the two youtube vides I referred to earlier:
EF 70-300 L (on 550D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp4bx3BYHFc
EF 100-400 Mk II (on 1D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxSvibXgaNs

The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> Thanks for your additional replies, _neuroanatomist_ and _Mikehit_.
> 
> By the way, I just did find the two youtube vides I referred to earlier:
> EF 70-300 L (on 550D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp4bx3BYHFc
> ...



I would not put those two tests in the same league. The 1D series applies much more juice to the AF motors than the xxxD series can ever dream of because !D are designed to drive the 600mm lenses. 

Even then I would not call the 70-300 test 'slow'. Slower than the 100-400 test maybe but not slow. And it seems to be quicker than the USM version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utCQxf2HFVU


----------



## Grant Atkinson (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> Thanks for your additional replies, _neuroanatomist_ and _Mikehit_.
> 
> By the way, I just did find the two youtube vides I referred to earlier:
> EF 70-300 L (on 550D): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp4bx3BYHFc
> ...


Hi Haggie, perhaps it will be a good idea to rent a 70-300L IS for a few days, as you said. I must say it came as a surprize to me to 'hear' that the EF 70-300L is considered a slow-focusing lens. I have not found it so. I use mine for wildlife photography. Before the 70-300L I owned the 70-200L f4 IS and the 70-200L f2.8 IS ii. After trying out the 70-300L I was so surprized by its fast AF, and decent image quality that I bought one, and nearly always preferred it to both my 70-200L lenses, mainly because of the extra 100mm of focal length, and also because of its fast AF. I also own the EF 100-400L ii and feel that it may AF even faster. Going on how I feel the lenses focus through use, I would rate the new 100-400ii as fast as the 70-200f2.8 IS ii, over the same focal length, and then the EF 70-300L IS just behind that, and as fast as the 70-200L f4 IS if not quicker. The 70-300L is much, much faster to AF than the old 100-400l IS and lenses like the EF 300L f4 IS. I have not used the 55-250 so I cannot comment on that. I have used my 70-300L with the 70D, 7D Mk2, 5DMk3, 1DMk4, 1DX and 760D. 
I was happy to see Dustins and Neuro's posts, as they both own the lens and use them.
I have a lot of action images with the EF 70-300L but most of the subject matter is mammals. I find it a bit too short for serious bird photos unless the birds are big and approachable.
Another thing that I like about the EF 70-300L IS is that if you retract it for storage, it is so compact that it can stand upright (with hood reversed) in my camera bag, taking up no more space than a wide angle zoom.
I attached an image taken with the lens, using a 5Dmk3. 
Cheers
Grant


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Mikehit wrote "_The 1D series applies much more juice to the AF motors than the xxxD series can ever dream of because !D are designed to drive the 600mm lenses_". 
You are right there. When testing that 100-400 II on my 70D in the store, it felt about as fast as what I saw on the youtube vid I mentioned. When testing the 70-300 L in the store, this was noticeably slower than the 100-400 II. 

And Mikehit also wrote "_And it seems to be quicker than the USM version_". With this you mean the EF 70-300 non-L from that youtube vid you mention, right?
I fully agree with you there. But everything has faster AF than the present EF 70-300 non-L. 

That brings us back at the reason for starting this thread: the present EF 70-300 non-L is soooo slow for anything that actually moves  , that a NEW EF 70-300 non-L with faster AF (I hope that the rumor on this board about a new AF means that there will be the new nano-USM) and also with better image quality at the long end in particular.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?



Yes, the body makes a _significant_ difference. Also, seems like you're comparing the time to rack focus from the minimum distance to infinity, and the 70-300L focuses closer than the 100-400 II (the 100-400 gives 0.21x mag, the 70-300 gets to 0.31x despite the shorter focal length). That closer focus means a longer min-max traverse, so even if focus rate is the same the 70-300 would appear 'slower' because of the greater distance the focusing group must move.

So your comparison is artificially and doubly stacking the deck against the 70-300L.


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Thank you for your elaborate reply, grant Atkinson.
The experiences with the AF speeds of several lenses you describe are in line with what other posters have written. Even though my (short) tests in the store with a 100-400 Mk II and a 70-300 L were different and a Canon representative wrote differently, these are all together too clear and concise for me to ignore. 

So I will indeed hire a 70-300 L this summer and just check it myself. Around the landing strip of a commercial airfiield I will get many (and as least as important: reproduceable) opportunities to test and compare the AF-speed of the 70-300 L with my 55-250 STM.

That might bring me back to my original preference: the 70-300 L for both landscape, architecture, vacation and also for action with planes and birds. ???

I am just afreaid that, when the 300 mm proves to be too short for smaller birds (as some earlier replies indicate and I am also a bit afraid of), I will have trouble to convince my wife to buy the EF 200-600 when that arrives. 8) I have the money to spend, but I can only spend it once and the 70-300 L is quite a bit more expensive than I expect the new 70-300 non-L to be (around twice as much, I guess).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is huge ........ but maybe the body plays a role in it?
> ...



Not sure about this post. The 100-400L II focuses down to 3.2 ft and gives a 0.31x magnification. It is the 70-300L that focuses only down to 3.94' and gives a 0.21x magnification. I think you got the two figures mixed up. It is the 100-400L II that has to overcome an unusually close minimum focus distance for such a long focal range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > haggie said:
> ...



Thanks! My mistake, scrolling down a spec comparison on my phone, and indeed I mixed the two MFD/max mag figures.


----------



## Plainsman (Jun 1, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit asked "... _have you considered the 70-300L_?".
> ...




...so you seem to know more about it than a Canon rep. - that surprises me. 

Actually the 55-250 STM is very fast and as it is a new lens it would not surprise me in the least if it turned out to be faster than the few years old 70-300L as improvements in lens technology occur so rapidly.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 2, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > haggie said:
> ...



I've yet to use any STM lens (and I think I've reviewed most all of them) with focus _speed_ that competes with the better USM motors. That's not really the strength of STM. Stepping technology is more about smoothness of focus than maximum speed.

If the new 70-300 sports the Nano USM technology pioneered in the new 18-135 IS USM then I wouldn't be surprised if its focus speed was able to exceed the 70-300L. Nano USM is very, very fast.

As far as knowing more than a Canon rep - I'm sure that's not true on all levels. That being said, I am a photographer who actually uses the lenses, which may not be true of a rep. I also review 20+ lenses per year, so I have a chance to spend extended periods with more gear than the average rep. I've used both lenses extensively on multiple camera bodies.


----------



## lux (Jun 10, 2016)

I've often considered buying a cheap used 70-300 

1)because it was the first telephoto I ever bought and I loved it when I was using it on my old xti...of course my 300 2.8 L IS and my 100-400L is ii are much better but...

2)at our local professional soccer club they have a 6 inch lens rule....and the 70-300 is just under 6 inches.


----------



## haggie (Jun 18, 2016)

Last weekend I had the opportunity to try out both an EF 70-300 L and the 100-400L II during an air show. I met some people with these lenses there, and could try both lenses for about half an hour each on different planes.

I can be brief. 
-The EF 70-300L is simply too slow to focus on anything that does not move in a straight line for some time. So in practise, a commercial airliner taking off or landing is no problem for it, and neither is a slow (propeller) airplane landing or in takeoff. But anything that (1) moves a bit eratically or (2) moves fast is too much for it - except for an occasional 'accident' that happened to be in focus.
-The EF 100-400 II gave me plenty of sharp results for airplanes that the 70-300L missed most of the time. 
And the my own EF-S 55-250 STM performed somewhere in between.
This was all done with the same 70D body, so no influence from a camera with faster AF capabilities. The differences are the result of the different properties of each of the lenses.

As an aside: I have also experienced the speed with which the 1D focussed with the EF 100-400 II, and that was astonishing to me. This was the first time I used a 1D. After that my own 70D felt very plain ........ :-\

I must add that the (few) images that were sharp with the EF 70-300 L showed more contrast and detail, and even better color than my EF-S 55-250 STM. As could be expected based on the many tests there are available and expereinces that have been shared. 
I could hardly see any differences in IQ between the 70-300 L and the 100-400 II.

So the conclusion can only be that for photographing airplanes in flight and for birds in flight (for completeness: with the 70D), the EF 70-300 L is unusable due to its slow AF. 

That brings me to the choise I must make: what lens to chose after I have bought the 80D. I hope the new EF 70-300 non-L will have faster AF than the present 70-300 non-L (which is easy) and than the 70-300 L.

No doubt the IQ of the new EF 70-300 non-L will be less than the IQ of the EF 70-300 L, otherwise there would be no reason (neither for customers of for Canon) to have 2 EF-lenses in the same 70-300 mm range.

But for the AF-speed of the new lens it could be different. I can only hope that the new EF 70-300 non-L will have faster AF than the 70-300 L. From what I have read, the new "nano-USM" technology Canon recently developed could just do that.

But if the new EF 70-300 non-L will not be faster, for whatever reason Canon may have to do so, then AF-speed can no longer be a reason the select a lens for the use I described above. And therefore I will have to jump to another brand - for the first time in 30 years.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 18, 2016)

haggie said:


> Last weekend I had the opportunity to try out both an EF 70-300 L and the 100-400L II during an air show. I met some people with these lenses there, and could try both lenses for about half an hour each on different planes...


Comparisons side by side, in the real world always give more reliable answers. That being said, can not escape the reality:

Canon 100-400 L ii, is calling you, and not will be another one that will satisfy you without regrets.

Other lens brands?
Sigma and Tamron has some good optics, but fast and reliable focus is not its features. Perhaps the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, but the price is higher than the Canon 100-400 L ii ... :


----------

