# 70-300mm IS due for update



## KyleSTL (Sep 12, 2013)

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:


 Canon 70-300mm IS USM Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR Focusing Design Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM Internal focus, FTM Focusing Motor Micro USM, noisy, slow Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast Stabilization 3 stops 4 stops Year 2005 2006 MSRP $650 US $590 US Street Price $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H $420 US eBay / $587 B&H 

One could say that Canon did upgrade it by releasing the 70-300mm L, but that is in a whole different price bracket, and shouldn't be compared. It would be like comparing the Canon vs. Nikon 28-300mm lenses; they are clearly in different classes. How has Canon not updated this lens in the past 7 years?

I must say, I miss the fast, quiet and accurate focusing my old 100-300mm USM and 70-210mm USM lenses had; and they were small and light, too. If either of those lenses had IS I would not have considered 'upgrading' to the 70-300mm. I wish Canon would up date this lens to be on par with Nikon and stay in the same price bracket.

I also find it funny that Canon announced this lens alongside the crowd-pleaser 24-105mm L. 

By the way, I have used both, as I own the Canon and my dad owned the Nikon (on a D600). The Nikon wins hands-down in overall feel, responsiveness, build quality, etc.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 12, 2013)

I expect it to be discontinued and not updated. It is a Dinosaur. Of course, it might be announced tomorrow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2013)

Canon has the EF-S 55-250 for APS-C users. I think that right now, if you buy a FF body, Canon wants you to buy L-series lenses to go with it. 

I think that eventually, Canon will get FF sensors into the xxD line, if not the xxxD. At that point, there will be a need for 'consumer' EF non-L lenses, and we'll see an updated 28-135 as a kit lens, and an updated 70-300 as a telezoom.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 12, 2013)

I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).

I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm. Of course, it's not a low light lens and of course it can't compare to the 70-200 series but it's a fine lens. It's light, it's small, it is well built (unlike the 55-250) and it's a full frame lens. Is it worth $650? No. I bought a near mint copy for $275.

I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.

I think many of the people criticizing the non-L 70-300 either are confusing it with the 75-300 series or have never used it. For years users of both the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and the non-L 70-300 IS have debated which is the preferred lens. The IQ is better on the L but there are several reasons the 70-300 may be the preferred or better lens for many people.


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 12, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> I have both the non-L 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.
> 
> I use the non-L far more. Certainly not because it's better. It's not. But, it is much better than then retired 100-300 and for a host of reasons I found it to be a better lens than the 55-250 (it should be as it costs more).
> 
> ...


Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ. Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin). Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300. 

The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS

In every other department the 70-200mm is a much better lens, in my opinion.

EDIT: I have used the 70-200mm f/4L on a few occasions, so I am speaking from personal experience.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 12, 2013)

_The only advantages the 70-300mm has over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS are:
- Smaller
- Lighter
- IS_

Well, I would add that its primary advantage is the extra reach of 200mm to 300mm and, as its black, it's less conspicuous, and it's shorter so you can take it into some venues that you cannot take the L lens.

I have very little experience with the 70-200 f/4 non-IS but I used it enough in the store and have read enough to know that its IQ is better than the 70-300 non-L for sure. And the auto focus is better. And maybe the color and contrast.

But, I doubt you'll find the 70-200 f/4 used for under $300. And that and the above noted six advantages of the 70-300 may make the 70-300 a wiser choice for some. It does not mean the the non-L is a better lens.

Having the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I have never been tempted to buy either of the f/4 models of the 70-200. And I'm not now. I still love my 70-300. And I am not alone. Read the comments by Roger on the LensRentals site wherein he reviews in mini format the newer L version of the 70-300. While he concedes that the 70-300L is a far better lens, he suggests saving your money and buying the consumer non-L 70-300.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 12, 2013)

Just get the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD.
Better build
faster focusing 
similar optics
lower cost

Canon isn't the only option.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 12, 2013)

To the OP:
In 2010 I thought the 70-300 will get a renewal, since Canon was practically giving it away with bodies, and huge rebates were available even without. Even at that time, the difference between the Nikon and the Canon was apparent. But Canon came out with the L instead, and as Neuro mentioned, it was evident that Canon wanted FF users to go L. 2.5 years, and there's been no new non-L. I don't think it's going to happen. 



jthomson said:


> Just get the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD.



Just make sure you never need to sell it, because selling my Tamron was a real pain!



Bruce 101 said:


> I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm.



You must have an exceptional copy. I found mine not to be so sharp between 250-300. 



Bruce 101 said:


> I think the STM version of the 55-250 may give it run for the money at least for those who do not also have a full frame body.



Agreed. Even the 55-250 non-STM was better than the 70-300 and focused as fast. In fact, as the above post said, the Tamron is a much better lens all around (except for resale value).



KyleSTL said:


> Having owned the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM and now the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I can say that at the long end of each of their ranges the 70-300mm is no better than the other two in IQ. Mid range and at the wide end, I'd give the 70-300mm the advantage (but not by a wide margin). Obviously the 70-300mm has IS which the other two lack, but as far as focusing goes 70-210 and 100-300 are head and shoulders above the 70-300.



Having both the 100-300 and the 70-300, I beg to differ. The 100-300 was fast, but in every other department it sucked. Pretty bad IQ all the way, even if you discount the lack of IS. 70-210, I have no idea about.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 12, 2013)

_Even the 55-250 non-STM was better than the 70-300 and focused as fast. _

That has not been my experience and I owned the 55-250 and the 70-300 at the same time for a short while. The 55-250 (non-STM) was/is a nice lens with lousy build and was/is close but not equal to the 70-300 IS in IQ, color, contrast, focusing. The much inferior 75-300 was often given away in kits (and still is). While the 70-300 is still part of Canon kits from time to time (right now on their rebate packages), the 75-300 was the one that added little cost to the package and zero value.

While the Tamron gets better reviews, despite its alleged sluggish focus (and, according to some, it features Tamron's "quality control" issues - I had such an issue with the 24-70 VC), I do worry about the resale.


----------



## PureShot (Sep 12, 2013)

This lense is amazing, i love this lense in studio or for outside
PHOTOZONE Verdic
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.
www.pureshotstudio.com


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 12, 2013)

The 70-300 IS provides me with some fantastic photos - I'm generally happy with what I use it for, which is landscape work - it gets soft beyond 200mm, but then I'm comparing it to my 135L, which I find better in some uses including with my 1.4x extender - cropping into a 189mm shot taken with the 135+1.4x is sharper and the AF far superior for fast action, but a pig for flexibility - which is why I want to upgrade to a white telephoto zoom like the 70-300L, 100-400 or a 70-200 2.8 IS II with extenders...

If you are in the market for a low cost but good quality tele with some flaws in AF, take a look at the 70-300 IS - its not a bad lens, it's just not an L lens !


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 12, 2013)

PureShot said:


> This lense is amazing, i love this lense in studio or for outside
> PHOTOZONE Verdic
> The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens. As much as it may promise here its build quality remains in line to what you can expect from a consumer grade lens and the small max. aperture is limiting its scope specifically regarding portraits where you seek for a pronounced fore-/background blurr only possible via large apertures (f/2.8 and larger). However, if you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel photography this lens should be high on your shopping list.
> www.pureshotstudio.com



I should point out that that quote came from the verdict after testing on an 8mp APS-c. I checked it out because I would have been surprised if photozone had made this remark about FF or a high res APS-c. The 70-300 non L is a slightly whacky lens, as opposed to the L version which is slightly superlative. If it is a long way out on focus the torque from the front end is rather alarming for those that aren't used to this type of thing. The manual focus is, well, don't go there. It is very out of date in this respect. However it is very good optically from 70 to about 110, significantly better than the 24-105 for instance, and at 200 to 300 it produces a rather impressive soft focus effect that's better than the dedicated 135 soft focus. It's a very popular lens though, I see many of them about with the public at sporting events.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 12, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:
> 
> 
> Canon 70-300mm IS USM Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR Focusing Design Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM Internal focus, FTM Focusing Motor Micro USM, noisy, slow Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast Stabilization 3 stops 4 stops Year 2005 2006 MSRP $650 US $590 US Street Price $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H $420 US eBay / $587 B&H
> ...



And then there's the Tamron 70-300 VC which stomps on both the Canon and Nikon options.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 12, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> PureShot said:
> 
> 
> > I should point out that that quote came from the verdict after testing on an 8mp APS-c. I checked it out because I would have been surprised if photozone had made this remark about FF or a high res APS-c. The 70-300 non L is a slightly whacky lens, as opposed to the L version which is slightly superlative. If it is a long way out on focus the torque from the front end is rather alarming for those that aren't used to this type of thing. The manual focus is, well, don't go there. It is very out of date in this respect. However it is very good optically from 70 to about 110, significantly better than the 24-105 for instance, and at 200 to 300 it produces a rather impressive soft focus effect that's better than the dedicated 135 soft focus.
> ...


----------



## PureShot (Sep 12, 2013)

Here canon 6D with 70-300mm is 
http://www.studio-photo.ca/galerie/photo-commerciale-publicitaire/#prettyPhoto[gallery-1]/8/
its the last photo in the gallery - corporate portrait 
how you find this lense with FF ?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 13, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> Wow, criticizing the lens because the great review of it is too old! That's a reach.
> 
> The SL-1 is a high rez APS-c and the 70-300 performs quite well on it. All the way to 300mm. Maybe I have a very good copy?



It's not a case of the review being old; it is the fact it was on 8 mp aps. Photozone do not wax so lyrical in their reviews based upon higher resolution cameras.

However as I said, at 70 to about 110 it is stellar when stopped down a little. At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 15, 2013)

_At 200 to 300 it is very sharp in the centre, again when stopped down a little, but it is very blurred mid to edge of frame on FF, and does bizarre things with highlights. The poor mid frame is large enough to effect aps.

I'm just being realistic about the lens; my daughter has one and gets some great images, my partner in Building Panoramics has one specifically because of its creative effect._

That is really hilarious. It is a slow, consumer lens - not intended for low light venues. But, outdoors in good light, it's a fine lens. Edge to edge sharp and all the way to 300mm.

I have not been able to create the "creative effect", "poor midframe" "bizzare" highlights or "blurred mid to edge" - possibly you had a very, very bad copy. Hope you were able to return it.

From this link, http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/,
there are two wide shots (18mm with either an SL-1 and 18-55 STM or 18-135STM). The other three shots are with the SL-1 and the 70-300 non-L IS @300mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> possibly you had a very, very bad copy



I guess TDP got one of those bad copies, too.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 15, 2013)

I guess TDP got one of those bad copies, too.
[/quote]

I guess. And I guess Roger at Lens Rentals got a good copy - http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is

And so did the real users here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=146426&highlight=70-300&page=103


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> I guess. And I guess Roger at Lens Rentals got a good copy - http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is


 I trust you realize that you linked the 70-300*L*? While Roger does say that the 70-300 is 'a very good consumer zoom' (_consumer_ being a key point), he also says the 70-300L 'puts it to shame,' optically and in other ways. 

Lots of comments from 'real users,' including many in the POTN thread you linked, about the lens being soft at the long end, advice to be sure and stop down at the long end, and even so, statements like '300mm @ f/9 still could not produce crisp images.' The two copies of the 70-300 non-L that I tried were also noticeably soft from 200mm onward.

I'm glad you're happy with your copy of the 70-300, as I am sure many people are. There are also people who are happy with one of the 75-300 lenses. I notice you stated that the 70-300 isn't worth $600 (it's currently $650, BTW). While paying less than half of current retail doesn't affect the optics of a lens, it can affect one's _perception_ of that lens' performance, and it certainly affects the perceived value. Personally, if budget was a limiting factor, I'd recommend the 55-250 STM for a crop body, and I'd suggest FF users beg or borrow the $60 to cover the difference to the 70-200mm f/4L (a difference which drops to $22 if you buy the ET-65B hood, not included with the 70-300).


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 15, 2013)

Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here. Does it compare favorably to the L version - of course not. And that's not what this discussion is about. You and another post seem to suggest the lens is a piece of trash - particularly from 200mm to 300m and around the edges, in the middle and everywhere else.

The original OP called it "embarrassing".

IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.

In low light or where lightning AF is needed, not so good.

Have you personally used it on a 5DIII or SL-1. I have. Extensively. It's quite good if you know when to use it, how to use it, etc.

Does it match anything about my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, but that's not what this discussion involves.

Here, unedited is what Roger says regarding the L version and why the consumer version (which allows for the purchase of more high quality lenses) is maybe a better use of the cash:

_It [the L version is] a much better lens than the $500 consumer grade Canon 70-300 IS (which is a very good consumer zoom). However, if I were putting down my hard-earned cash (OK, maybe not so hard-earned, I make my living playing with photography toys all day), I’d buy the consumer zoom and spend the other $1,000 on a Canon 17-55mm IS or Canon 24-105mm – or just get a Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS and blow $500 on groceries or something frivolous. _


----------



## Ruined (Sep 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bruce 101 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess. And I guess Roger at Lens Rentals got a good copy - http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-300mm-f4-5.6l-is
> ...



I personally agree that the 70-300mm IS USM is not worth $649, though I paid $380 for a brand new copy and therefore I am satisfied with its performance. It *is* soft at 300mm and the 70-300mm L does destroy it. However, for under $400 prior to the release of the STM version the non-L was by far built the best and looked the best. I believe the STM version will likely outclass it optically but still be an inferior build quality.

Regarding the 70-300mm f4-5.6L vs 70-200 f4L, I believe they are for two different audiences yet in many ways I see the former as more useful than the latter.

70-300mm f4-5.6L
- Slower and a bit heavier BUT...
+extra 100mm of SHARP reach.
+easier to fit in the lens bag, as generally width is easier to accommodate than long length
+A nice complimentary lens to the 70-200 f/2.8 L, rather than one you'd want to replace due to extra reach and small size.
+A far higher IQ "travel lens" alternative to the 70-300 DO IS

70-200 f4L
+Faster @ constant F4 and a bit lighter BUT...
-100mm less reach. Try to add a TC and you have even longer length and slower lens than the 70-300L.
-longer length might make it a difficult fit in some bags
-If you already have the 70-200 F/2.8L, this lens is rather redundant compared to the 70-300L

If you don't have nor plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L ever than the 70-200 f4l is a better buy. But if you do have or plan to get the 70-200 F2.8L I can see how the more compact length and greater reach of the 70-300mm L may make it a nice lens to keep in a addition to the 70-200 F/2.8... But I think one would be less enticed to keep both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 due to the exact same range despite weight differences.

*TO address the OP...*:
Yes, I believe the NON-L 70-300mm is due for an update. While it is better optically and build wise than the old 55-250, it is unlikely to retain the optical edge over the 55-250mm STM and the autofocus will definitely be worse. Being that this lens has been available with rebates @ under $400 several times in the past few months, I believe Canon is going to retire it. It may not be replaced, though, as someone else mentioned the 70-300L may have actually been the replacement. For those that want something smaller and lighter than the 70-300L there are already options with the EF 70-300 DO IS and the EF-S 50-250 STM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.
> 
> IQ-wise with the right settings and the right light, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from other more expensive zooms.



I figured you knew you were linking a page that says the 70-300 non-L is good, rather than the page specifically about the 70-300 non-L, where he says it's put to shame by the L. 

'With the right settings and the right light'? Sure - f/8-11 is a great equalizer, so is Sunny f/16. It would be nice to always shoot on sunny days or mainly static subjects, but that's not a luxury everyone has. Heck, even in low light like 150 lux, the 50/1.8 beats the 600/4 II - just ask DxOMark. :


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bruce 101 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I know I posted a link to Roger's Lens Rentals review of the 70-300 L version. I did so because, in that review, he recommended purchasing the non-L 70-300 we are discussing here.
> ...



Man, you keep wanting to compare the non-L to the L though no one else is biting on that discussion. I would certainly hope a lens costing twice as much would put the lesser lens to shame! If you want to start a thread on such a comparison, enjoy!

This from Lens Rentals page on the 70-300 non-L:

_A much better lens than its predecessor (the 75-300), this is a small, easy-to-carry zoom with great range. The Image Stabilization makes handholding possible in almost all situations, and the images are nearly as sharp as those taken with “L” quality lenses_

Well, you asked for it.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 15, 2013)

*Re: 70-300mm IS *

I picked one up a few months ago when PriceWatch said the price dropped to around $400 at one of the second tier online retailers. I figured for that price it would be a good backup or I could use it for rough outdoor situations where I did not want to risk my better lenses.

I wasn't too impressed with it on the 5D3, but a few weeks ago I took it to Portland International Raceway where there was a British Car Field Meet going on. I put in on my 7D to extend the reach and kept it at F8. Here is an example taken at 300mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200.

Full frame:












(some sharpening applied in LR)

I later switched to my 200 2.8 L and it was noticeably sharper. I used it wide open, but with a much faster shutter speed, which more than made up for the lack of stabilization.

My conclusion is that you get what you pay for!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost. 

Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm. On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 15, 2013)

Here's an example of what I mean. Shot at f8 - it would have been better at f11. 300mm and you can see it is very good in the very centre, but falls off to an unacceptable level in what is still only mid frame. This picture shows it blowing the whites, some thing that both the lenses tend to do. ( This was shot on FF).


----------



## luckydude (Sep 16, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> I am very happy with the 70-300 IS. It can be sharp all the way to 300mm.



Amen. I think this is one of Canon's sleeper lenses (and I own 8 L lenses and a pile of non-L). I don't use mine any more because I mostly shoot primes these days, but I used it a lot back in the day. All these are w/ that
lens:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/elkhorn_slough

In particular look at 

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/elkhorn_slough/8.html

and if you want to pixel peep click on the pic to get the full size original. Hand held, from a canoe, pretty sharp.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 16, 2013)

Pretty sharp edge to edge at 300mm. A nice vacation lens. Travels well.

See here (taken a couple of days ago):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9753970085/#


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost.
> 
> Also, as I stated - I tried two copies of the 70-300 non-L, and found both to be unacceptably soft from 200-300mm. On an 18 MP APS-C, stopping down to f/11 was about the best compromise between lens sharpness and diffraction, and on FF away from the center, neither delivered acceptable sharpness at any aperture. Not acceptable for $650, not acceptable for $275. Obviously, I'm judging based on my own standards and for the lenses I tried, YMMV.


I think neuro hit the nail on the head here, much better IQ can be achieved with shorter FLs cropped to 300mm than the 70-300 IS, and also have the added benefit of good AF, build quality and overall handling. Add to that the fact that we are discussing this lens against the likes of the 55-250mm and when you consider the price of all the lenses we're discussing, it is very clear that the current 70-300mm IS is overpriced:


LensYearMSRP Retail Used70-210mm USM1990------$125-150100-300mm USM1990------$125-15055-250mm IS2007/2011 $300$265$125-150Tamron 70-300 VC 2010$450$450$230-280*70-300mm IS**2005**$650**$650**$300-360*70-200mm L1999$710$680$475-525

The discontinued 1990 USM lenses (15 years older) offer similar IQ with better build quality and focusing for considerably less money. Conversely, the 70-200L non-IS is slightly more expensive but is substantially better in all aspects.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 17, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that the 70-200/4L and 200/2.8L offer better IQ than the 70-300 non-L, even cropped to the 300mm AoV, and for similar cost.
> ...



I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to say the IQ on the non-L 70-300 is better than the L 70-300 or even better than the L 70-200 f/4 (non-IS).

Most of us who like the lens (a lot) are just arguing against the statement that the non-L 70-300 IS is embarrassing or useless at 200mm to 300mm.

I can never suggest that someone is wrong when they submit evidence that a lens produced bad IQ for them. Clearly, any lens can produce bad IQ. And it's not necessarily because of the camera body, the ability of the photographer, improper choice of lens for a particular shot, wrong settings or maybe because the lens copy is poor. I do recognize that sometimes it's just a bad lens period. 

But, for those of us who have produced fine shots edge to edge all the way out to 300mm with the 70-300 IS (non-L), I think it's useful for persons wanting to consider the lens to hear from us. We can and do get very good images with the lens. I cannot explain why you don't and others don't. And I am not fond of it for sports or action or wildlife. I am very fond of it for landscape and portraits and other still images. It's great. Sorry, but that's my experience. And I own and use a lot the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II as well.

I can create bad photos (and do) using good bodies and good lenses. I am not good at producing great photos from lousy lenses. The non-L 70-300 is a fine lens if you know how to use it and how not to use it. 

One of the most hotly debated lens choice issues over the years involving two Canon lenses is the debate over which is the preferred lens - the non--L 70-300 IS or the L 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). But it's not an IQ argument. It's a "which do you prefer" argument. I can spend $30,000 on an SUV or $30,000 on a sedan. Which is the better vehicle? It's a crazy question. It depends on the user.

If you need IS or 200-300mm or a smaller lighter lens or a less conspicuous lens so you can get it into an NFL game (you can with the 70-300 - you can't here with the white, longer 70-200) - then get the Canon non-L 70-300 or the Tamron or the 55-250.

If you want somewhat better IQ, better AF and don't have a problem getting the long white lens into venues then by all means get the non-IS 70-200 f/4. It's a very nice lens.

If I did not already own the IS f/2.8 version of the 70-200, I might consider the non-IS 70-200 f/4. But, probably not. I'd get the IS version.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 23, 2013)

Forget L-lenses: From the sample shots I've seen and MTF charts, I would not be surprised if the EF-S 55-250 STM outclasses the 70-300 IS USM Non-L across the board, with the exception of build quality.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 23, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Forget L-lenses: From the sample shots I've seen and MTF charts, I would not be surprised if the EF-S 55-250 STM outclasses the 70-300 IS USM Non-L across the board, with the exception of build quality.


I've had 55-250 (first version) and looked better picture quality than 70-300 (non L) at the long end. The STM version should be even better and faster focus.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion, but don't you think the 70-300mm IS is embarrassingly outdated, especially considering its Nikon equivalent?:
> 
> 
> Canon 70-300mm IS USM Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR Focusing Design Front focus, extending, rotating, no FTM Internal focus, FTM Focusing Motor Micro USM, noisy, slow Ring-type SWM, silent, fairly fast Stabilization 3 stops 4 stops Year 2005 2006 MSRP $650 US $590 US Street Price $360 US eBay / $650 US B&H $420 US eBay / $587 B&H
> ...



Save your money and buy a 70-300LIS, it's a fantastic lens and it'll be the last 70-300 you'll buy. It's far better than the 70-200 f4 LIS the 70-300 IS and the Nikon variant. Save patiently and get the best.


----------

