amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You'll find extensive info about the lens in the thorough review here... https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

You can also compare the lens' image quality and other aspects against many other lenses there.

The 70-300 II isn't compatible with Canon teleconverters, but might be used with third party TCs that don't have a protruding front element.

Just a thought.... The differences aren't huge between the II and the original version of the lens. The II has the new "Nano" USM focus drive and nifty LCD distance scale, along with a more "modern" look. But the really important stuff such as image quality, focus speed, IS effectiveness and build quality aren't very different between the two versions (look for more details in the above review). The original version of the 70-300 IS USM is still available brand new, for the discounted price of $377 (versus $499 for the II).

Personally I use the EF 100-400 II (which has come WAY down in price) and several of the EF 300mm primes. The 100-400mm uses fluorite that helps it be one of the sharpest telephotos available (Tamron and Sigma 100-400s are a lot cheaper, but not nearly as sharp as the Canon). When I need to shoot in lower light conditions, I'll switch to the EF 300mm f/4, for it's one stop larger aperture (and I agree with a previous response, it also works very well with a 1.4X teleconverter, a 420mm f/5.6 combo with IS, which the sharp, fast focusing EF 400mm f/5.6 lacks).
When I have to shoot in really tough lighting conditions or want to be able to seriously blur down backgrounds, I use EF 300mm f/2.8 IS... But that's a much bigger, heavier lens that basically requires a good tripod with a gimbal to be practical for anything more than a few minutes hand held shooting. Of course, the 300mm f/2.8 is also a good deal more expensive than the other options. What surprised me was how good the image quality of the EF 300mm f/4 IS USM (currently one of Canon's oldest designs still in production) and the EF 100-400mm IS USM II compare with the "super telephoto". Aside from the wonderful blur effects possible with the f/2.8 lens, there isn't huge difference.

Hope this helps. Have fun shopping!

miker47

I own that lens and like it a lot.

bleirer

It's best to listen to those that have actually used the lens. Just based on the comparison images, the Tamron 100-400 looks sharper than the Canon 70-300 but nowhere near the Canon 100-400 or the Canon 400. I feel your pain. I just rented a Canon 400 to test. Waiting for the FedEx truck as we speak.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

This is the only Canon non-L 70-300 that allows FULL-TIME manual focusing while leaving the lens switch on AF, if you use back-button-focus and just don't press the focusing button.. That does it for me. I wish I had money to buy one.
The previous version of it (with focus scale in a window instead of an LCD display) also does this.

If you aren't loaded enough to use L lenses, this is the baby.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have it for my 10D and really like it and the quality of the images produced.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have had a love/hate relationship with the 70's-200/300 range. I thinks that I have shot every thing possible. Lots that I love. I now just to 150-600 but have an older 70-200 f/4 that is razor sharp. But iff I was blank and I wanted native the following is great glass at great price. -$360 USD, two day shipping free, one year warranty free

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-

(Download)

gasstro Loc: Indiana

Great lens, fast and sharp!

dragonlady9947

I have the Canon. 70-300. Yes, I like it and use it all the time. I would recommend this lense for you to start. It is not too heavy and I use it when hiking. I decided to purchase the 100-400, however, when I couldn’t get close enough for some bird shots. It should arrive on Thursday. Went to B&H-saved the tax which was $163. It apparently weighs 3lbs. I have an EOD 50D and a EOS 5D Mark IV. The 70-300 works on both cameras. Go for it!

bleirer

On the side by side digital picture comparison, if you put the 100-400 at 400 or the 400 against the 300 plus the extender at 420, the 300 is not as sharp, especially midframe and corner.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Tamron 100-400 is very sharp - Imatest results show it to be best in class - but the question is the speed accuracy and consistency of it's AF !

If speed, accuracy and consistency of AF matters, then you want a CANON lens.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

In my experienced opinion, The focus and IQ really set the II nano apart ! - I am comparing it to the 300 2.8 Canon....irregardless of what any web site is "showing" ....
.

bleirer

That's a great buy at that price!

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

bleirer (a regular here) Joined: Mar 3, 2017 Posts: 882

Gifted One wrote:
I have had a love/hate relationship with the 70's-200/300 range. I thinks that I have shot every thing possible. Lots that I love. I now just to 150-600 but have an older 70-200 f/4 that is razor sharp. But iff I was blank and I wanted native the following is great glass at great price. -$360 USD, two day shipping free, one year warranty free

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-


That's a great buy at that price!

The earlies version in even less. I have purchase many Canon refurbished products. One of the 70-300 was purchased in the $200 range the shot I displayed what can be done with that glass. I am a senior with health issues and I walked 1/2 mile in the snow then stopped to takes a scenic. I was expecting to run into some wildlife. Hand held the IS works great!

J. R.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Bleirer I have owned the Canon 300mm f/4L, the 400mm f/5.6L, and still own the 100-400 Mark II. The 100-400 mkII is the best lens in the group, but the 300mm f/4 is not sharper than the 400mm f/5.6. If you are going to be birding the 400mm f/5.6 is a good lens unless you are going to be shooting in the woods or something where available light is a concern. I do a lot of BIF and any sunny day ISO 400 and f/7.1 will produce shutter speeds above 1/1000. You really want to shoot when the sun is somewhat low in the sky, overhead light is a bummer for birding. If you have the money I would probably consider the 400mm, I think that I sold mine of about $600 when I let it go and it was in fine condition, if you shop you can find it used for near that price because I always research used lens pricing on Ebay before I sell a lens. That lens has to be handled somewhat carefully because about 4 or 5 inches of the rear of that lens is simply a hollow tube and if you get the rear element dirty or even let dust in there it is really difficult to clean.

bleirer

I think the newer 70-300 is a lot sharper though, at least comparing the test images. Actual practice it could be fine. I have the 75-300 and it is noticeably worse on the test images, but I limp along with it while I research alternatives and dream of a brighter future.