EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS II

Just came in today minus the Lens Hood ( on back order ) from B&H. I'm really liking this Lens! IS is rock solid, Focusing is lightning fast and I mean fast! Build quality is pretty good for plastic construction about the same as my 24-105L. The LCD Display is a nice and needed feature, shows Distant/ DOF, Focal Length and Image shake ( Not needed IMHO). The Focus and Zoom Ring is smooth and well damped. The Manual Focus is Electronically Controlled and the Focus does not extend or rotate like the v1 does. Has Manual Focus override in Auto Mode.

I had bought a Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD and that was a nice lens except the VC was a little herky jerky at times, then Lens was sharp from 70-200mm but above that it started to get soft and Auto Focus was a hit or miss so I returned it for the Canon. I'm glad I did, the Canon is so much better! Maybe I just got a funky copy as most reviewers were not getting the problems I did.

My copy of the Canon is really sharp from 70 up to 300mm. Here are some sample Images at 300mm at f/5.6, SOC, default settings in Camera and LR except Auto WB. Did I say the Auto was Fast? Yes it's fast, Accurate and light ( 710gr ) as compared to the 70-300L.

These are not artsy fartsy, just technical.............​..

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QeWb​F1

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PU2S​uC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QsXH​ne

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QeWf​u3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QeWc​M9

Thanks for posting your thoughts and samples. Care to share any full-size JPG or CR2 files? I can PM you my e-mail, if that's OK with you. Wouldn't it be a hoot if this is close the the 70-300L for IQ/IS/AF? I don't see Canon cutting its own throat, but stranger things have happened.

Thanks for the review. Can you do some low light testing and see how the IS performs?

My understanding is it's VERY VERY close to the "L" in terms of IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

70mm is almost no difference at all but the corners.... real world results would leave you questioning which lens took what.

I'm in the market for either one zoom or two for video work and aperture doesn't mean anything to me. I had a tamron 70-300 but for video work I would prefer to stick to Canon so all the distortion/vignetting etc correction can be done in camera and applied to the video. This looks like a real winner.

Bassat wrote in post #18220921
Thanks for posting your thoughts and samples. Care to share any full-size JPG or CR2 files? I can PM you my e-mail, if that's OK with you. Wouldn't it be a hoot if this is close the the 70-300L for IQ/IS/AF? I don't see Canon cutting its own throat, but stranger things have happened.

Sent you 8 RAW and 1 full size jpg file...............

rssmps wrote in post #18221327
Thanks for the review. Can you do some low light testing and see how the IS performs?

I'll do that tonight

Talley wrote in post #18221812
My understanding is it's VERY VERY close to the "L" in terms of IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

70mm is almost no difference at all but the corners.... real world results would leave you questioning which lens took what.

I'm in the market for either one zoom or two for video work and aperture doesn't mean anything to me. I had a tamron 70-300 but for video work I would prefer to stick to Canon so all the distortion/vignetting etc correction can be done in camera and applied to the video. This looks like a real winner.

Looks like Image quality are just about Identical, real hard to tell the difference. The Auto Focus still blows me away! Fast, Fast, Fast!

Here's the relative size difference between a 24-105L and the 70-300 II...............

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PVLM​UJ

I like how it's smooth now without any protruding buttons. Very clean. Nice looking lens. I'll wait a few months and get one when the prices get into the 375-400 range.

I like those two zooms... very good quality and VIDEO ready These will go back into my bag for video work.

Nothing in the Inbox, yet.

You should have them now ...............

Looks good. I read good reviews about this lens. Looking or a less expensive travel zoom. Sold my 70-200 f4 IS a few years ago and now I regret it. I picked up the 55-250 STM for light travel but next time I may just travel with my 5D4 next time. I don't want to spend as much as I did as the 70-200.

keep us posted with shots and info.

Chief_10Beers wrote in post #18221951
You should have them now ...............

Downloading now. I have HughesNet (slow), so it may be awhile.

I just looked at the files in DPP4 to see where your focus points were. Then looked at the raws in LR5.7. I thought they were a bit soft until I processed them. The 300mm shots looked good at f/5.6, and excellent at f/8. Amazingly, in all the bright/dark edges in those photos, I could not find a hint of CA. I'll certainly be watching for some professional reviews of this lens.

BTW, I ran the existing profiles on this lens. The 70-300II looked better. I'd consider using that until you can get one made for this lens. Or not use one at all, the SOOC files looked pretty good with no corrections. The old 70-300 USM seems to over-correct a bit.

My wife got the 70-300 II about a week ago to replace her 55-250 STM. So far she likes the new lens very much. It's a little heavier which seems to balance better with her 70D camera. As shown by Chief_10Beers and the-digital-picture, the image quality does seem to be very good.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18222590
My wife got the 70-300 II about a week ago to replace her 55-250 STM. So far she likes the new lens very much. It's a little heavier which seems to balance better with her 70D camera. As shown by Chief_10Beers and the-digital-picture, the image quality does seem to be very good.

I already checked the specs. 335g heavier. Almost twice but I don't see very many other options within that price range. I did own the original version but sold it for the 70-200 F4 IS. I'd like an L lens but I got some great shots from 55-250 when I travelled with it. There was nothing wrong with the original 70-300, but the 70-200 edged it out for me. 3 times more expensive.