# More Talk About the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2016)

```
There has been a bit more talk about the upcoming Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II. We haven’t yet nailed down the announcement date, but all indications say it will be before Photokina in September.</p>
<p>We’re told the new lens will have a “digital display” like the Zeiss Batis lenses, what information is on that display is unknown at this time. The lens will also feature nano usm.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the new version is slightly heavier than the previous version due to the front element and has a “stubbier” design.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## whothafunk (Jul 21, 2016)

who, seriously, cares about this lens? where's the 50 1.4 update, ffs


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 21, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> who, seriously, cares about this lens? where's the 50 1.4 update, ffs


A lot of people who purchased Tamron 70-300 VC just because Canon 70-300 was quite bad. As long as this lens costs around Tamron lens and performs better.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > who, seriously, cares about this lens? where's the 50 1.4 update, ffs
> ...


A friend of mine has it defnietly on the "desperately want" list.
And he's a typical "average" DSLR customer. 
(I am more interested in the 100-400II  )


----------



## James Larsen (Jul 21, 2016)

I kind of wish they'd come out with another DO lens to be honest...doesn't have to be the 70-300, a different focal length would be great...


----------



## haggie (Jul 21, 2016)

I happen to know there are quite some people looking forward to a replacement for the pretty unuseable present 70-300 non-L (like I also know Canon lost quite some buyers to other brands due to that). 

A few weeks ago I myself was at the point of buying a non-Canon equivalent of the 70-300. 
But now that I read this I am glad I updraded from 70D to 80D first.

The fact that it seems to have nano-USM looks promissing. All that remains is to wait for the image quality.

Hopefully this new version will deliver what technically could easily be: a Canon 70-300 non-L with decent image quality and fast AF. I therefore hope that this "_digital display_" is not just a gimmick to sell a new lens with the same bad image quality and slooooow AF of its predecessor. 

That mean that I hope someone managed to control the boys and girls from _Sales_ that often seem to be more interested in existing old products when _Design and Engineering _is working on something new.


----------



## Pag (Jul 22, 2016)

I don't get the hatred this lens (well, the mk. I) gets on these forums. It's not my best lens, but it's far from unusable. Here's a couple of recent shots I took with it -- I don't think they're that terrible.



Inna Modja au Festival d&#x27;été de Québec by Pierre-Alexandre Garneau, on Flickr



2016-06-23 Aquarium du Québec 13010 by Pierre-Alexandre Garneau, on Flickr


----------



## George D. (Jul 22, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> where's the 50 1.4 update, ffs



Forget it for 2016. So the 2016 roadmap says...
However, Amazon has discounted current by 13%. New version seems soon after (2016).


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jul 22, 2016)

If this new lens actually comes to fruition, I'm dumping my 70-300 L. Getting really really tired of big and heavy glass.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 22, 2016)

Pag said:


> I don't get the hatred this lens (well, the mk. I) gets on these forums. It's not my best lens, but it's far from unusable. Here's a couple of recent shots I took with it -- I don't think they're that terrible.
> *snip*



Now go try to get some good pictures of tiny Birds, or a duck 100 feet away.

I've been on the edge of getting the 55-250 IS STM for a while now, even while knowing that this is coming the 55-250 is tempting, but if Canon gives us an inexpensive 70-300 with good IQ on the long end, it may very well end up the best budget telephoto lens on the market.
Especially if that Nano USM can keep up with reasonably quick movement.


----------



## Dfunk99 (Jul 22, 2016)

Shot this with my 50D & 70-300IS last October.


----------



## Pag (Jul 22, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Now go try to get some good pictures of tiny Birds, or a duck 100 feet away.



Both of these shots were at 300mm. The musician one was shot wide open. Maybe I got a good copy, I guess.


----------



## coldsweat (Jul 22, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told the new lens will have a “digital display” like the Zeiss Batis lenses, what information is on that display is unknown at this time.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


Question - Does anyone ever use the display in their lenses??


----------



## haggie (Jul 22, 2016)

Coldsweat wrote "_Question - Does anyone ever use the display in their lenses??_".

I know that I do, and I do so regularly. Think of any situation where your AF might be wrong or off like in low light, in low contrast, where there are many reflections, with many subjects at different distances close together, etc. etc. etc. This distance indication is a quick check that is required then (using the Depth of Field Preview Button on your SLR often is much too cumbersome then).
So I think that a "digital display" could be a real assett on this lens. Just like the distance scale on ring-USM lenses is usefull. 

After thinking about thing part of the 'rumor', I hope that this new "display" will also give us back some form of the Depth of Field Scale that once was common on SLR lenses. That would even make this desplay more usefull. The FD lenses Canon had for the 35 mm SLR's also had them, and I loved that - together with many other users. 
Think of Landschape photography, (occasional) Macro photography, Still lives, when you want to preset a Manual Focus distance in combination with a specific aperture for specific circumstances, etc. etc.


The new "display" should not be just a gadget to let the new lens underperform where it counts.
As others have written so many times in this and other threads, the main requirement for the new 70-300 non-L is 
(1) better IQ than the present 70-300 non-L (despite what some believers keep repeating about their lens: there is almost unanimity about its IQ being bad); and 
(2) much faster AF speed so that it is reliable at least around the house with playing kids, dogs, etc... 
In that respect, nano-USM has a promise to keep based on the EF-S 18-135 mm. Let us see what AF speed Canon has decided that the nano-USM technology may deliver in an EF-lens for the intended buyer population ......


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 22, 2016)

Pag said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Now go try to get some good pictures of tiny Birds, or a duck 100 feet away.
> ...



The point is that some subjects normally require tons of cropping, even at 800mm. Examples where the subject fills the frame don't push the limits of the camera.
Can you get a good portrait while only using 1/100th of the frame?


----------



## Cochese (Jul 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Pag said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I took this one of a yellow finch with it. I was quite far, so this image is quite cropped. Perhaps I just got a really good copy. I've since sold it with the t2i I used with it.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 22, 2016)

Nice images! Yeah, I don't get the hate either. I have one and it's a rather nice lens for the price and weight. When I NEED reach, I use the 100-400 (version 1), but that's a big and heavy lens and I don't always have it on me. The 70-300 is small and light enough to fit into a standard camera case and give me instant reach if I need it. It might not be L glass, but it's still a decent lens and it's nice that they're planning to come out with a version II. 





Pag said:


> I don't get the hatred this lens (well, the mk. I) gets on these forums. It's not my best lens, but it's far from unusable. Here's a couple of recent shots I took with it -- I don't think they're that terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder (Jul 22, 2016)

Nice!



Cochese said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Pag said:
> ...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 22, 2016)

Marauder said:


> Nice images! Yeah, I don't get the hate either. I have one and it's a rather nice lens for the price and weight. When I NEED reach, I use the 100-400 (version 1), but that's a big and heavy lens and I don't always have it on me. The 70-300 is small and light enough to fit into a standard camera case and give me instant reach if I need it. It might not be L glass, but it's still a decent lens and it's nice that they're planning to come out with a version II.
> 
> 
> Pag said:
> ...


I think "hate" the 70-300 non L, is because of the cost benefit very poor. It would be a good buy if the price was $ 300, but the price was $ 650 for many years.

Especially for users of APS-C cameras, you can choose the optimum 55-250 STM. It's not just a question of price, but image quality, focus speed, weight, portability, are all points where 55-250 STM wins by a large margin.

However, the 70-300 non L is still a good lens for cameras like the original 5D, and its 12.8 mega pixel.


----------



## -1 (Jul 22, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > whothafunk said:
> ...


Lot's of people seem to swear by that Tammy like it was the Bibel. A crackdown should be in order...


----------



## -1 (Jul 22, 2016)

coldsweat said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told the new lens will have a “digital display” like the Zeiss Batis lenses, what information is on that display is unknown at this time.
> ...


Yes... Hate it when they are missing.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 22, 2016)

I've read good things about the 55-250STM and Dustin did a great review of it. It wasn't available at the time I bought my 70-300 non L though. Of course, the price of the 70-300 non L is a lot less now, although I paid a fairly steep price for it. I'm curious to see the IQ and price ratio of the replacement when it arrives. 



ajfotofilmagem said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Nice images! Yeah, I don't get the hate either. I have one and it's a rather nice lens for the price and weight. When I NEED reach, I use the 100-400 (version 1), but that's a big and heavy lens and I don't always have it on me. The 70-300 is small and light enough to fit into a standard camera case and give me instant reach if I need it. It might not be L glass, but it's still a decent lens and it's nice that they're planning to come out with a version II.
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 22, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> ...
> However, the 70-300 non L is still a good lens for cameras like the original 5D, and its 12.8 mega pixel.



Bingo.
The minimum requirements for making a very good looking picture are extremely low by today's standards.
I really think that Canon should start making a 12MP APS-C sensor just for the sake of native 4K recording on budget bodies. Stills image quality at 20MP+ is lightyears beyond what any casual user needs.
(To be perfectly clear, I want a 50MP APS-C body, but resolution is almost irrelevant outside of focal length limited shooting.)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 24, 2016)

-1 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I had that Tammy, and it was better mechanically, with real ring USM (USD) and a non-rotating front element. The IS (VC) was also better, but overall image quality at the long end? meh...


----------



## nc0b (Jul 27, 2016)

I owned the 70-300mm non-L for several years after buying a 60D. I bought it on CraigsList for around $375. A friend of mine still has his, though I traded mine for a 70-200mm L IS plus $500 cash. I had no complaints about it optically, but I didn't like it extending when zoomed out, nor the rotating front element. I cannot see flaming the lens. I have some nice pictures of small perched birds from 20 to 30 feet, about as close as I can get to a song bird before it flies off. The IS seemed quite good. I now have a 100-400mm II for similar shots with a 5DsR body. The new combo is much heavier and much more expensive. I still cannot get closer than a a few 10s of feet from a small bird.


----------

