Thoughts on Canon 70-300 is usm ii "Nano"

Currently the hoary owner of the 70-200 F4L, but keep feeling like I could use the extra reach and IS. Not to mention the lens in question is a full 18 YEARS newer in design.

Does anyone have either the 70-300, or both the 70-300 and the 70-200 and would be able/wiling to comment on their day to day usability? from image sharpness, to feel, to actual usage, I'm curious to hear your opinions.

Thanks,

-Camo

The following comments about the 70-300 II are misconceptions. Post left up for reference. Apologies.

I had the old 70-300 non-L micro-motor (not really) USM lens. The front element turns as you focus, no FTM, slow(er) AF than real USM, and you NEED f/8 past 270mm to get usable results. Crap lens. According to TDP, the II uses the same glass. It does improve on the focus speed, and has better IS. I'd call it another version of a crap lens. But it is cheap.

The 55-250 STM is better glass, for less money. The 70-200 f/4L IS USM is way better glass (better than the non-IS version, too) for a lot more money. If you need focal range, look at the 70-300L (about $900 used) and/or the older 100-400L ($700 used), or the new Sigma 100-400 ($800 new).

Here's a different opinion. My wife had the 55-250 STM and felt it didn't have enough reach. She decided to try the EF 70-300 II. I know "the-digital-picture.com" shows that the 55-250 is slightly better, but neither my wife nor I can see any image degradation when comparing her 55-250 photos with the 70-300 II photos. In my wife's opinion, the 70-300 II focuses faster and has better IS. And it does have more reach. She also likes the feel of it better. It's a little heavier than the 55-250, and it balances better for her on her 70D. She's very happy with the lens.

BTW - the old 70-300 and the new 70-300 do not have the same glass. The old one was 15 elements in 10 groups; the new one is 17 elements in 12 groups. The new one also uses bigger filters (67mm vs 58mm). The Canon comparison is here:
https://www.usa.canon.​com …ompare?models=4​0290,11922

To wrap this up, here are some of my wife's photos:

My argument loses all validity if the lenses (old vs. II) do not use the same glass. Apparently they do not. I retract my comments.

With regards to image sharpness, here is a comparison. I took a photo of the P-51 at the same time as my wife did. It was her first airshow, and she was using the 70D + 70-300 II. I have done quite a few airshows, and I was using a 1DX2 + 100-400 II. Mine should be better, and it is. But hers is very, very good.

Wife's image:

I haven't used the 70-300 non-L, but what worries me most about going non-L is subpar color rendering (the examples posted don't look very reassuring in that regard).

CheshireCat wrote in post #18398376
I haven't used the 70-300 non-L, but what worries me most about going non-L is subpar color rendering (the examples posted don't look very reassuring in that regard).

Just comparing the two Mustang shots, I'd say the difference is more likely due to in-camera JPEG settings or post-processing. Glass differences on that level of lens tend to be more subtle.

Mike

Not my experience.
The Mustang shot probably shows how people are prone to oversaturate in post because of subpar colors.
The Canon 50/1.4 and many Samyang primes are cheap lenses showing the same problem.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18398508
Not my experience.
The Mustang shot probably shows how people are prone to oversaturate in post because of subpar colors.
The Canon 50/1.4 and many Samyang primes are cheap lenses showing the same problem.

It's post processing. My wife and I are different on that. Here's hers processed the same as mine:

Hers:

Have to say, I'm really impressed with the results, especially compared to the beast that is the 100-400mk ii. The last thing holding me back as of now is build quality, going from the all metal L to the mostly plastic 70-300mm. How have you and you wife found it out in the field?

Camofelix wrote in post #18398597
Have to say, I'm really impressed with the results, especially compared to the beast that is the 100-400mk ii. The last thing holding me back as of now is build quality, going from the all metal L to the mostly plastic 70-300mm. How have you and you wife found it out in the field?

In case you haven't seen them, DPReview has quite a few 70-300 II sample images taken with a 5D4 and 80D here:

https://www.dpreview.c​om …f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm-samples

Regarding build quality, the 70-300 II does have a metal attachment collar (the collar on the 55-250 STM is plastic). Between my wife and I, we've used a number of similar lenses over the years such as the 10-18 STM, 18-135 STM, and 55-250 STM. We both usually carry two cameras using a BlackRapid Yeti strap. The cameras hang at our sides and do bump around a bit as we walk. That said, we do take care of our equipment and try to treat it properly. We have not had any failures of any of our equipment during the 6 years that we've been doing photography. I expect the 70-300 II to be as durable as anything else that we've had (with the exception of our "L" stuff). My son uses the STM family with his 70D. He's rougher on equipment than we are, but he hasn't had any failures either.

Finally, here's Jan in action. She's using a 70D + 70-300 II to take a picture of the icy shore shown in my earlier post. You can see her second camera hanging by her knee.

Thanks for posting the two images with same processing.
That and the examples on dpreview, confirm my opinion about the subpar color rendering due to a yellowish color cast.

Unfortunately, good glass for the lens elements is not cheap and one of the reasons we pay a premium price for L lenses.

Bassat wrote in post #18398008
The following comments about the 70-300 II are misconceptions. Post left up for reference. Apologies.

I had the old 70-300 non-L micro-motor (not really) USM lens. The front element turns as you focus, no FTM, slow(er) AF than real USM, and you NEED f/8 past 270mm to get usable results. Crap lens. According to TDP, the II uses the same glass. It does improve on the focus speed, and has better IS. I'd call it another version of a crap lens. But it is cheap.

The 55-250 STM is better glass, for less money. The 70-200 f/4L IS USM is way better glass (better than the non-IS version, too) for a lot more money. If you need focal range, look at the 70-300L (about $900 used) and/or the older 100-400L ($700 used), or the new Sigma 100-400 ($800 new).

Bassat wrote in post #18398074
My argument loses all validity if the lenses (old vs. II) do not use the same glass. Apparently they do not. I retract my comments.

I found the discrepancy in my thinking. The following is from MC's review of the 70-300 II. He compares the II to an UPDATED version of the older lens, and rates the new one as more or less equivalent. I had an old copy of the older lens, which didn't fare well beyond about 270mm. MC does state that the new (version II) needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the longer end for best performance. Two comments on that: Most lenses perform better stopped down a bit. Some newer high-MP aps-c bodies are well into DLA by f/8 (the 80D is f/5.9).

My initial post above refers to the OLD copy of the OLD lens. I never owned the 'updated' version I of this lens.


From: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
What we discovered is that, basically, the 70-300 IS II is optically similar to, or slightly softer than, the last 70-300 IS I lens we tested. In the center of the frame, at wide open apertures, the II is slightly soft with a noticeable improvement in contrast being seen with a 1 stop narrower aperture. Performance is rather similar over the entire focal length range. With relatively narrow max apertures, stopping down quickly reaches the aperture where the effects of diffraction begin to become apparent on the latest camera models. Still, this lens' center of the frame performance is looking especially good at f/8.

Bassat wrote in post #18399304
I found the discrepancy in my thinking. The following is from MC's review of the 70-300 II. He compares the II to an UPDATED version of the older lens, and rates the new one as more or less equivalent. I had an old copy of the older lens, which didn't fare well beyond about 270mm. MC does state that the new (version II) needs to be stopped down to f/8 at the longer end for best performance. Two comments on that: Most lenses perform better stopped down a bit. Some newer high-MP aps-c bodies are well into DLA by f/8 (the 80D is f/5.9).

My initial post above refers to the OLD copy of the OLD lens. I never owned the 'updated' version I of this lens.

From: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
What we discovered is that, basically, the 70-300 IS II is optically similar to, or slightly softer than, the last 70-300 IS I lens we tested. In the center of the frame, at wide open apertures, the II is slightly soft with a noticeable improvement in contrast being seen with a 1 stop narrower aperture. Performance is rather similar over the entire focal length range. With relatively narrow max apertures, stopping down quickly reaches the aperture where the effects of diffraction begin to become apparent on the latest camera models. Still, this lens' center of the frame performance is looking especially good at f/8.

It’s interesting that Lenstips came to an opposite conclusion claiming that the newly redesigned lens is sharper than the old one and nearly matches the L equivalent when it comes to resolution.
https://www.lenstip.co​m …est=obiektywu&t​est_ob=503
I use this lens mostly for 4k video on 5div and it’s IS is the best one I’ve seen. Handholding at 300mm (522mm eq. 4k crop), at 1/60s yields tripod like results. DPAF video tracking is smooth and silent.

I just picked up a very clean copy of this lens used on eBay and it just arrived yesterday. As someone who purchased a 75-300 III before I knew any better I know how bad Canon's budget telephoto lenses can be, but this lens is certainly in a different category. I took it out for some test shots this morning before the sunlight reached our yard so I was able to put the lens's IS to the test. My first impression is I'm surprised how light the lens is while still feeling solid and well-built. I'm also amazed at how fast the AF locks on, this lens will certainly work as a daily carry telephoto for capturing random wildlife when I'm not carrying my Sigma 150-600 C!

Here's my first few photos taken with this lens, the sunlight was yet to hit the backyard so got to test out the IS and got some motion blur from the squirrel waving his tail around.

-Joe

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21CE​dpK

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ZxtE​Af

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ZxtE​Ff

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21CE​dvB