Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

[JW]

It's great to improve on the non-L EF 70-300 IS, but doubling the price and then some?  They added obvious build quality and I'm sure it's sharper... and it's WHITE...  but not making it a constant f/4 or some other great improvement will make this one a hard sell I think, unless the non-L disappears.  I had the non-L and the IQ of the non-L never made me very happy... but there are lots of consumers out there who aren't nearly as demanding who are quite satisfied with the non-L 70-300 at it's consumer price point.

I'll keep my tried-and-true 100-400L, thank you very much.  I'm very happy with it.  Shooting FF, I need the extra 100mm at the long end.

[kubelik]

as much as I was dubious about Canon putting out a 100-300 f/4, in comparison to this it would have made far more sense.  the overlapping zoom range with the 70-200s, the variable aperture (what!) ... I guess they felt if they made it 70-300 f/4 it would cannibalize the 70-200 f/4-5.6 but as it stands it's just going to cannabalize itself.

bought a sigma 100-300 f/4 this past week but I'm still sorry to see that Canon isn't putting out either a 100-300 f/4 or a 100-400 replacement.

the good news is this means a 100-400 range replacement could still be coming (some years later) as there is no way that this is a replacement for the dust pump

[Flake]

As many have said on this forum, & on others this lens does not make a lot of sense, too slow, too big & heavy, and far too expensive (£1600 in the UK).  I cannot guess what the mindset behind this latest set of releases was, because Canon users have been crying out for better Wide angle performance, a replacement 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L with IS maybe a better 24 - 120mm f/4 IS L.

We've been presented with improvements to lenses which probably didn't need them, lenses which fit a small niche market, and others which don't fit what users want and are expensive.

Hopefully later in the year we will see some of the things we can feel comfortable parting with money for!

[unfocused]

I'm usually not one to second-guess Canon's market research. They understand their market a lot better than I do. But I am scratching my head over this one.

I just don't see where this fits in.

• Seems like a lot to pay for f5.6 at the long end. Like others have pointed out a constant aperture f4 would have been more tempting.
• It's priced significantly higher than the 300mm f4 prime.  If you need a sharp lens at the long end, that becomes more appealing. Especially because you can use a tele-converter on the f4 to extend the range.
• This lens is priced $100 under the new Sigma "Bigma" So, for an extra $100 you get 500mm and you give up 1/2 f stop.  (Of course, the Bigma is no "walking around" lens, but it's a better option in the Super-Telephoto range.)
• Nikon decided to release a new crop-sensor 55-300 at about 1/4 the price.

All very confusing to me.

I am wondering if this is it for new lenses. Nothing in the lens category that is aimed at the enthusiast or semi-pro. No new EF-S lenses, yet they've released a new crop-sensor camera (60D), the T2i is less than a year old and they may release a 2000D soon.

As I said, this is leaving me scratching my head.

[awinphoto]

Any word on MTF ratings compared to the 70-200's?  I used to own the 70-300 but sold it quickly because it was ok but just not sharp, especially in 300 range... I hope this is greatly improved... Also $1500?!?  the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses on the market (or at least canon's line up) and $300 cheaper... I could get a teleconverter for less $$ and perhaps get greater results...? 

[rrcphoto]

Any word on MTF ratings compared to the 70-200's?  I used to own the 70-300 but sold it quickly because it was ok but just not sharp, especially in 300 range... I hope this is greatly improved... Also $1500?!?  the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses on the market (or at least canon's line up) and $300 cheaper... I could get a teleconverter for less $$ and perhaps get greater results...?

looking at the raw MTF's .. from 70-300 it's almost as good if not as good as the 70-200/4 L IS is from 70-200.  I very much doubt that a 1.4 TC plus 70-200/4 is going to give you as good of results considering the 1.4 tc usually injects a pretty steep corner performance penalty.

at 300mm it compares quite well to the 300mm F/4 L prime.

and it kicks the consumer 70-300 to the curb as far as performance - MTF wise, fully weatherwise, full USM, updated IS, no rotating front element, etc,etc.

and it weighs in at nearly the same as the 70-200/4 + TC.

not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

the old 70-300 was a great bang for the buck - you put up with it's compromises because it was cheap.

anyone expecting a constant aperture lens .. I'm curious if they wouldn't have minded the double or triple price, greater weight and size that lens would have entailed as well.

[Flake]

not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

The price here is not the issue, it's what accountants call opportunity cost, if you buy this then you don't buy something else.  So what's not to love?  If this was the only lens at this price point and focal length that might be reasonable, but there's the 70 - 200mm f/4 IS L a legendary performer and a stop faster; it's not far off the cost of an f/2.8 and that's no contest! Then there's the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 which gives another 100mm reach and again excellent performance.

I have a collection of L lenses and all of them are 77mm so I have filters & other things which fit that size, they won't fit a 67mm lens which again makes it less attractive, and there's the 70 - 300mm DO lens about this price, not a great seller, it's a crowded market place and I'm not sure that this lens has got what it's going to take to make it a great seller.

[kubelik]

flake, I think you answered your own question.  the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.

1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.

but, when you can get the 100-400L for that much ... or the 300 f/4 for less ... or the 70-200 f/4 L IS for less ... or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for just $400 more ... what is there to love about it?

if it came in at $1200 that would be one thing, but taking it into the $1500 range put it up against some fierce competition from its older brothers.

that's what's not to love.

[rrcphoto]

flake, I think you answered your own question.  the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.

1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.

but, when you can get the 100-400L for that much ... or the 300 f/4 for less ... or the 70-200 f/4 L IS for less ... or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for just $400 more ... what is there to love about it?

if it came in at $1200 that would be one thing, but taking it into the $1500 range put it up against some fierce competition from its older brothers.

that's what's not to love.

great .. so let's see .. 100-400 and 300/4 not weather sealed and old IS implementations.  do you honestly think an updated 100-400 L would be 1200? given canon's usual price jumps .. think double . .or more if they make it a faster lens.

70-200/4 which this lens has as good of performance MTF wise by for it's entire range ..

70-200 for 400 more? where? considering the 70-200 2.8 II is MSRP 2500 here versus this one at 1500

Not including the TC .. which of course is free, and doesn't weigh a half a pound like canon's 1.4 TC does - and of course doesn't lose any resolving power at all by adding the TC into the equation at all .. right?

if you looked at the MTF's .. performance wise, this lens is as good as any baring the 70-200 2.8 II L

so you have the compromise on aperture for optical quality .. at 1500 that's a compromise.

or would you have rather spent 3,000 to 5,000 on a constant aperture one not including the additional weight of the lens as well?

because you certaintly wouldn't have gotten that for 1.5k ..

[jWeu]

I have an 70-300 IS nonL and will stay with this. I hoped for an 70-280 f/4 L IS (77mm):

70-280 f/4 + ex1.4 III = 100-400 f/5.6 (77mm).

Now I would like to use 70-200 2.8 with an extender 1.4 or 2.

The new lens make economically sense since the non-L 70-300 is no longer available. Should I sell my used zoom for more money I bought it?

I'm still waiting for some MTF of the new combination 70-200 2.8 + ex1.4 III.

P.S.:
I have no idea, why lenses are not build with focal length like ampetures: 50 71 100 141 200 283 400 566 800 1131 ?
The multiplier is always a square root of 2.

[kubelik]

rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)

I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens.  it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point.  an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market

[traveller]

Somehow I think the slow-selling 70-300 DO is not long for this world...

I disagree.  The 70-300mm DO is a niche lens - intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth paying extra (or now, a little less).  This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.

On the other hand, the new 70-300mm L is only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end.  Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm.  But not really a faster aperture, and it's still a lousy variable aperture. 

But, I will agree that this space is getting crowded - 70-300 IS, 70-300 DO and now a 70-300 L.  But, there are 4 70-200mm zooms, so why not 3 70-300mm zooms?

Overall, I'm pretty thoroughly unimpressed by this new lens.  I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm.  The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical.  I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for carrying convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.

Agreed.  Too heavy for a travel lens; too expensive for a budget alternative; too short as an alternative to the 100-400L. 

All in all, a pretty disappointing set of lenses, unless you have niche interests. 

[rrcphoto]

rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)

I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens.  it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point.  an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market

agreed.  I'm liking the "portability" of this as well . it's very compact .. easy to pack into a travel kit.

it's a 400g more than the older 70-300 for sure .. however, it's far far more rugged, same length, simply larger diameter.

if the MTF's hold up to real life .. which they usually do .. then this will be a very very nice lens as a low volume (camera kit wise) lens to carry around - excellent optical quality small form factor.  to be honest, the MTF's have me very very surprised .. it then makes it a judgement call .. do i need the 70-200/4 or the 70-300/4-5.6 .. and not sacrificing optical quality going either way.

agreed that the 100-400L needs an update as well, that sucker (literally) kills cameras.. however it starts to get close to that weight where you start to make the call .. do I really need to bring it along sitting at around 1400g versus 1000g and a full 2 inches shorter in your kit to pack.

[Canon 14-24]

I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.

[/dev/null]

I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.

....at twice the price.