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

[weaponOfchoice]

I couldn't find the info, but does the front element extend, like the non-L version, when zooming? Going by the diagram, I think it does, but it's hard to tell and I'd be surprised if it did.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512

Look at the figure on the web site you link: At 300mm, the front element moves forward quite a bit, so yes, the lens extends as you zoom, like the non-L 70-300s and unlike the 70-200 f/2.8. At least focusing seems to be internal, so the front element does not rotate as you focus.

This is not a lens for me.

yup the lens extends out.  found these pictures of the pre-prod model today:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2010/09/sneak-peek-canon-ef-70-300-f4-56l-is.html

just outta curiosity why isn't this lens for you /dev/null?  i'm actually interested in buying a tele-zoom lens (as i don't have one) and thought this would be a good one.  thoughts/suggestions?

[Aputure]

I'm very interested in this new lens, except for the weight and the price! Oh well..

I think it may be time to grab the non-L 70-300mm IS now: http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/09/09/new-canon-l-lenses/

[unfocused]

I confused about the information that the 70-300 IS is not listed on the Canon page anymore. It's on the CanonUSA website:  http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm

[J]

I confused about the information that the 70-300 IS is not listed on the Canon page anymore.

It was a Canon USA website error; the non-L version disappeared from the lineup for a few days. That happens sometimes when new lens pages are posted.

[rbr]

I don't see what all the negative responses to this lens are all about. If the quality is there its price doesn't seem out of line with all of Canon's other recent introductions. Yeah it's maybe on the expensive side, but if the quality is there, especially wide open on the long end,  it doesn't seem outlandish. It seems like it would be an excellent and versatile little lens for hiking and travel. It's compact and rugged, covers a wide range, focuses close, and has the improved IS. It seems like a useful professional tool, which is hopefully what it was designed to be. There are plenty of less expensive alternatives out there.

[Edwin Herdman]

I think the key "problem" with the lens is that it doesn't cater enough to sports / press users who would like a larger maximum aperture, regardless of ISO performance.  This certainly is the issue for me.  A larger maximum aperture would definitely come with weight and more expense, of course.  The MTF curves are very promising, and the new IS rounds it out.

Everything about the features of this lens and the press information Canon put out suggests this is targeted for advanced amateurs, not professionals who I hope will be getting a lens targeted for them in the future (with at least f/4 at the 300mm end).

A Canon equivalent of the Nikon 200-400 would be nice too...

[neuroanatomist]

Everything about the features of this lens and the press information Canon put out suggests this is targeted for advanced amateurs, not professionals who I hope will be getting a lens targeted for them in the future (with at least f/4 at the 300mm end).

I suppose Canon thinks the 'real' professionals will be using the new supertele primes, like the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. 

But in a way, Canon has already given us a ~100-300mm f/4 lens with great IQ.  The newish 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well, giving an 89-280mm f/4 lens that's sharper at 280mm f/4 than the Mk I version of the lens at 200mm f/2.8 (see a comparison HERE). 

[kubelik]

neuro, thanks for the link -- I'm surprised the difference is that huge.  another alternative I'd like to highlight is sigma's 100-300mm f/4. 

it doesn't have IS, and it has probably the worst lens hood I've ever worked with, but other than those two issues, it's a great lens (even disregarding the sweet price) for anyone interested in shooting in the 300mm range

[neuroanatomist]

neuro, thanks for the link -- I'm surprised the difference is that huge.

Yeah, I was, too.  That's one reason I got the new 70-200 II, in fact.  I have and really like the 100-400mm L, but it's not weather-sealed, whereas the 70-200 II + 1.4x gives me 100-300mm that I can take out in the rain.  It's a constant f/4, which is great - but it's big and a bit unbalanced.  Now, here comes this new 70-300mm L, which loses a stop at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x, but is a lot smaller and still has weather sealing.  If it manages to beat out the 70-200 II + 1.4x for sharpness, it becomes a much more interesting lens (and one for which I might consider changing out my 70-300mm DO). 

[Edwin Herdman]

On the sharpness front, you might get an idea how the extender 1.4x would affect the 70-200mm IS II by looking at the differences to the new 300mm or 400mm.  Here's the 300mm.  The 70-300mm's MTF lines are close to the 70-200mm's, but I'm not expecting a big drop off in performance with the extender.  For me, the question is more whether the loss of the wide end and the aperture, and the cost and weight, are worth the slightly wider maximum aperture.

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Another bad thing with this lens, as revealed by TDP, is that it's already at f/5.0 way before 200mm, at 155mm in fact.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The 70-300 L appears to be very sharp wide open including good sharpness into the full frame corners at focal lengths up to and including 135mm. I expect to see nearly as good of performance right up to 300mm, but because of poor test conditions, I'm not yet ready to state this with any certainty.
 
I think we are going to see a little CA (Chromatic Aberration) in 70mm full frame corners, but little or nearly-none over the rest of the focal length range.
 
Distortion appears to be about average for a 70-300mm lens. Expect some 70mm barrel distortion transitioning to pincusion by just over 100mm. Pincusion distortion becomes moderate by 200mm and remains so through 300mm.

In short, the 70-200 f/4L IS + 300 f/4L IS would be a better choice, assuming money is enough for that but not enough for the 2.8 versions.

[neuroanatomist]

In short, the 70-200 f/4L IS + 300 f/4L IS would be a better choice, assuming money is enough for that but not enough for the 2.8 versions.

Except then you'd be carrying two lenses instead of one lens that's smaller than either of them.  The big advantage of this new lens is reach and IQ in a very portable package.  For more reach with the same slowness, bring a 100-400.  For less reach and more speed, bring a 70-200/2.8.  If I'm going out shooting from pre-dawn through the morning or afternoon through twilight, I bring both the 100-400 and the 70-200 II.  But if I'm going out in the middle of the day and bringing my toddler along, neither of the big white zooms is coming.  Currently, I've got the 70-300 DO for such outings.  The new 70-300 L adds a bit of length and weight, and seems to have much better IQ - that's not a bad trade.

[neuroanatomist]

The 70-300mm's MTF lines are close to the 70-200mm's, but I'm not expecting a big drop off in performance with the extender.

If you mean you're not expecting a big performance drop when pairing the new 70-300 L with a Canon extender, I disagree.  With that combination you'd take the ultimate performance hit - a completely unusable lens.  The 70-300 L is not compatible with Canon extenders. 

I can tell you from personal experience that the 70-200 II performs quite well with the 1.4x II, though.

[Edwin Herdman]

Bah, I'd read about that elsewhere and forgotten.  Guess the rear focus elements would hit the extender's optics.

Agreed totally on the balance of the new lens versus the multi-lens solution.  What's more, it's simply a newer lens and the other factors (new IS system, weather and dust sealing, better ergonomics) make me feel it's a reasonable investment compared to older designs.

Another bad thing with this lens, as revealed by TDP, is that it's already at f/5.0 way before 200mm, at 155mm in fact.

Thanks for the link and information - I wasn't expecting Bryan C. to update from the placeholder page so quickly!  Guess my faith he's an insider was well placed.  Anyway, I was afraid that the maximum aperture would become rather low quite quickly, though that is rather more extreme than I expected.  I'm not sure it will matter to me though - for 300mm, for instance, the sole affordable choice (for me) besides other zooms is the aging f/5.6 L single-focal length design, which I was considering previous to the 70-200mm (as mentioned before).  If I need a faster 200mm lens, there are some good single focal length options available such as the 200mm telephoto, or the 180mm macro.  I do think that continuing improvements on ISO and the tradeoffs in the AF performance of lower-tier DSLRs means that this will probably be a better match for those cheaper systems, at the expense of a more artistic look from faster lenses and more noise in low-light pictures.

[neuroanatomist]

I do think that continuing improvements on ISO and the tradeoffs in the AF performance of lower-tier DSLRs means that this will probably be a better match for those cheaper systems, at the expense of a more artistic look from faster lenses and more noise in low-light pictures.

Absolutely - and that's exactly where Canon has stated they are positioning this lens.  I have to assume there are quite a few xxD, 7D, and even some Rebel owners who want to step up from the base level (55-250/75-300) or mid-level (70-300 non-L) to a better quality telezoom, but then look at the 70-200L's and figure they're not long enough, and look at the 100-400 and think, "I can't lug that beast around!" 

It's still definitely a compromise lens, but with some very reasonable compromises.