Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM review - Summary

Have you rated your lenses yet?

Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM

23 June 2017

Arkadiusz Olech

11. Summary

Please Support Us

If you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - advertisement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pros:

Very good image quality in the frame centre,
Good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor apart from the 70 mm focal length,
Slight longitudinal chromatic aberration,
Low lateral chromatic aberration,
Lack of any serious distortion problems,
Low astigmatism,
Not bothersome coma,
Moderate vignetting for the APS-C sensor,
Noiseless, accurate and flash-quick autofocus,
Efficient image stabilization.

Cons:

Weak image quality on the edge of the frame at 70 mm,
Average performance against bright light,
A bit too high vignetting level on full frame.

Testing the Canon EF 70–300 mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM was a great pleasure and a very pleasant surprise. To be honest I expected a lens just a tad better than its predecessor, with a slightly better resolution and stabilization but a distinctly better autofocus because the mechanism of the predecessor was a complete failure. Meanwhile I got a lens which is able to compete with the L-series instrument on equal terms in most of aspects and its brilliant Nano USM motor takes the performance of the focusing mechanism to a quite new level.

The launch price of the Canon EF 70–300 mm f/4–5.6 IS II USM, amounting to about 2300 PLN, is practically the same as the launch price of its predecessor. Taking it all into account I don’t doubt the lens will find a lot of happy buyers, especially that the products of independent producers, even if cheaper, are inferior when it comes to image resolution, and far behind when you compare their autofocus and stabilization to those of the tested lens.