Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Preliminary Report

[spoli]

The Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens has a useful focal length

range, small size, light weight, midrange price and Image

Stabilization. It is relatively small (76.5 x 142.8mm / 3.0 x 5.6"

retracted) and light (630 g / 22.2 oz) for its range and fits nice a

Canon 20D body. Build quality is similar with my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6

IS USM -- i.e. decent: mechanically ok, nice finish, no weather

sealing.

 

The zoom ring feels comfortable and rotates smoothly but is a bit too

sticky in my opinion. The front element does not rotate when zooming;

however, the front element does rotate when focusing. A switch locks

at 70mm to prevent the lens from extending when not in use.

 

The focus ring is adequate but the front section (that extends) seems

to be a bit loose when in MF mode (or at least it feels like that).

Unfortunately, there is no distance scale and no real Ring USM. The

Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens does not include FTM (Full Time

Manual) focusing -- you must switch to MF mode to manually focus the

lens.

 

Focus speed is average (I expected faster AF because of the USM) but

accurate in good light. In low light, especially at the long end, I

noticed some focus-hunting.

 

The EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens uses Canon's latest generation

Image Stabilizer (IS) that provides an additional 3 F-stops for

handheld operation. This is definitely my favourite feature of this

lens. My first indoor tests indicate that the IS is very effective:

using a shutter speed of 1/40 I was able to obtain sharp photos even

at the longest focal length (300 mm); I've got decent sharpness even

at 1/13 @ 300 mm -- amazing !

When pressing the shutter half way down, the IS engages -- the effect

is very obvious in the viewfinder -- it helps to compose the image as

well. There are two IS modes: mode I (normal -- all directions) and

mode II (panning -- direction of camera motion); for the moment, I've

been using the first one only. The IS seems to be relatively noisy

compared with my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM.

 

The optical quality of this lens remains to be tested. But the

preliminary photos (handheld only) did not show any obvious problems

in terms of sharpness and resolution. Unfortunately, it will take me

a while to perform some serious tests -- maybe this weekend.

 

The price of this lens reflects its qualities (and defects): $736 CAD

(~ $620 USD). I'm sure that at least $250 is the IS -- it is a worthy

feature especially for those who want to carry less: handheld is fine

most of the time in good light, but in difficult situations (i.e. in

low light at the long end of the focal length) a monopod is more than

enough with the IS system on. Personally, I use a Manfrotto monopod

681 + rubber head 235C. I would have paid $100 more to have Ring USM

and FTM. Maybe the next generation...<div></div>

[sloopjohne]

Dude!

 

There's no image there! Just a big, black frame! :-(

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

What I want to know is, does it blow, the overpriced, underperforming, 70-300 DO away !

[jim_larson1]

So . . . . . this lens still appears to be a $400 75-300/IS? With an increased price and an improved IS mechanism?

 

Or to put it another way. . .A $150 75-300 with a modern IS unit?

[ericpetersonphoto]

Richard? Do you own a 70-300 DO? I do and I also owned a 70-200 2.8 L. I was so satisfied with the DO lens that I sold the L lens. The DO is every bit as good as the L lens from 70-200 and better from 200-300 ;) . Granted I miss the 2.8 to 5.6 performance but I rarly used it at those F stops. I dont miss the wgt. and size. I have never had the ghosting or flare issue arise and i use if for sunsets. I did have the old 75-300 IS and was unhappy with it. But since I will be using the 1.6 crop for years to come, I have made all my lenses that much better.

[KenPapai]

Take your lens cap off and repeat the test.

[KenPapai]

Take your lens cap off and repeat the test once more and reformat your humongous paragraph.

[mark u]

The whole issue with this lens is what optical quality does it provide across the range of focal lengths, particularly wide open. I guess most are waiting for your tests.

[ericpetersonphoto]

Ken, LOL. Maybe it was an exterior reveiw. Could have posted a picture of the lens.

[bsd230]

I think I will stick with my 70-200 4L. If it were cheaper it would be a nice alternative.

[KenPapai]

I won't hold my breath expecting any kind of good quality from a slow, 4.3X zoom lens. I just don't see how that lens would be that useful in a small viewfinder 1.6 crop DSLR. But then, when in doubt, at least post a nice picture of the lens, posing alone, a "nice lens gone bad." ;)

[steve_dunn2]

<p>It would be interesting to see a shoot-out between this lens, the 70-300 DO, and the old 75-300 IS. I suspect there won't be a lot of people who own all three, though :-)</p>

[spoli]

All right... The file I uploaded was a mistake: it contains the crop from the original picture somewhere in the middle of the frame. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to edit the initial post and to replace the file. Maybe another post will look better ;-)<div></div>

[spoli]

Here is the original photo (size reduced) and an excerpt from the EXIF info:

 

DateTimeOriginal - 2005:10:04 21:35:00

 

ISOSpeedRatings - 1600

 

ShutterSpeedValue - 1/40 seconds

 

ApertureValue - F 5.60

 

ExposureBiasValue - -0.33

 

MeteringMode - Multi-segment

 

Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode

 

FocalLength - 300 mm<div></div>

[KenPapai]

Interesting -- you apparently shot this at ISO 1600 of some newsprint, 1/40th second, f/5.6 at 300mm in auto mode! on a 20D.<div></div>

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

<i> Richard? Do you own a 70-300 DO? I do and I also owned a 70-200 2.8 L. I was so satisfied with the DO lens that I sold the L lens. The DO is every bit as good as the L lens from 70-200 and better from 200-300 ;) . Granted I miss the 2.8 to 5.6 performance but I rarly used it at those F stops. I dont miss the wgt. and size. I have never had the ghosting or flare issue arise and i use if for sunsets. I did have the old 75-300 IS and was unhappy with it. But since I will be using the 1.6 crop for years to come, I have made all my lenses that much better. </i>

<br><br>

 

Yes I've tried 2 copies of the DO. I agree that at f8 between 70-200, its as sharp as the 70-200 L. However contrast and saturation isn't the same. Every image needs more PP to bring it in line with the L.

<br><br>

I trialed it alongside a 70-200/4L and I got better results from the L. I even got better results handholding, even with the IS of the DO.

<br><br>

It's images just dont have that L pop.

<br><Br>

I now use a 100-400 L for when weight isn't an issue, and the older 100-300/5.6L for when I want to go light...

[spoli]

And Ken, if you consider this important for some, here is a picture of the lens.<div></div>

[ericpetersonphoto]

I guess I just got a stellar copy or maybe my L was below par? Just another circular argument. In this case many circles the next smaller than the next. (DO Joke, Sorry) Bye the way, that is a very handsome lens thanks for the photo! The lens you were using to take the photo seems to be very sharp. That is of course unless its anything other than an L lens, then it appears to be a little soft.

[athinkle]

I'd assume the increased price is caused by the fact that Canon claims the optical quality is higher than that of the previous version. If you read the MTF charts this appears to be true. There's a big enough difference that there should be a discernable improvement in images. I think that they threw a UD element in there or some such thing. Still, too slow for my tastes. I'll keep my 200 2.8L prime thank you very much!

[spoli]

One more IS test: tripod vs. handheld.

 

The focal length was set to 135mm (~215mm in 35mm equivalent). In both cases the IS was enabled; however, the system senses the tripod if the camera is rock stable. The aperture was set to F8: for a sensitivity of ISO 200, the shutter speed resulted 1/25s. After the tripod test, I took a bunch of shots handheld, using the same settings and selected a good one. Finally, I bumped up the sensitivity to ISO 400 and took few more at F8 and 1/50s.

 

The target was laser printed on a piece of paper (letter format); the quality of the target is mediocre (I'm trying now to print a high quality one using a high resolution printer and a much bigger format). However, the target is good enough for testing the IS efficiency. Cropping a central square of 400 x 400 pixels from each selected photo, the comparison can be seen in the attached picture.

 

The conclusion is that IS system of EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens works. And it works better than expected (seems to be more efficient than my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens). It is good to know that you can rely on IS for long focal lengths: wildlife and landscapes in good light may be areas where one can benefit on IS.<div></div>

[spoli]

Another image of the lens: retracted and extended.<div></div>

[mark u]

There are a whole bunch of images shot with this lens on a Rebel XT here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/ef70300is

 

Of course it would also be nice to see full frame performance.

[michael_ziegler2]

Is this a new version of the lens? I bought a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM back in April 2005, along with my 20D body.

[spoli]

This is not Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DO IS USM -- that lens contains diffractive optics, the Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM does not.