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

[docsmith]

Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!

Second the "Whoa".....or perhaps you need to take a further step back 

This is "potentially" a very good if not great lens.  I say potentially as it isn't even released yet.  It may not appeal to everyone/you.  Personally, I can see it as a great general purpose telephoto zoom.  The MTF charts are excellent and the only preliminary review that I've read (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) is very favorable.  Also, the final street price is not known, only "approximately" $1,500 (USD)....but lenses typically cost less than Canon's recommended price.  So let's wait a month or so to see how good production models are and how much they actually cost.

[Flake]

Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures.  The old 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 wasn't the best of lenses in it's class which is one of the reasons it was replaced, but have a read of the glowing review it gets on TDP.

I think I'll reserve my judgement until Photozone gets their hands on it and test it properly & impartially.

[docsmith]

Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures.  The old 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 wasn't the best of lenses in it's class which is one of the reasons it was replaced, but have a read of the glowing review it gets on TDP.

I think I'll reserve my judgement until Photozone gets their hands on it and test it properly & impartially.

I like the work that they do at photozone and SLRgear.  I like "Roger's Take" at lensrentals and bobatkins too.  I think each website adds to the collective wisdom on the web regarding canon lenses.  I definitely include TDP in that group.  As for test figures, the ISO 12233 comparisons on TDP are among my favorite ways to directly compare lenses.  Specifically about the 70-200 mm IS L f/2.8, "Roger's Take" liked it so much that he didn't think it needed to be replaced, SLRgear said that by "by any measure the 70-200 f2.8 L IS is an excellent lens" and even photozone only criticized it's performance at 200 mm in comparison to the f/4 IS.  Most reviews of the MK I I've read were very favorable.  It's just the MK II is better.

TDP provides a nice oratory regarding each lens from a users perspective.  You read the whole review and you get a good sense of the lens.  Pros and cons.  Is it spelled out as clearly at 3.5 stars vs 5 stars.  No.  That isn't their style.  And you don't have to like their style, I do.

[Supabongwong]

Though it is L glass, i think that people are way too focused on the image quality of their photo...rather than the actual quality of the image if you know what im sayin.

The old 70-300 was a 650 dollar lens with the same 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS so i honestly cant see them raising the price over at least double. You can get an f4/L IS for about the same price, though you dont gain the 100mm you gain the stop..

Why Canon, does an L label need to be worth so much. YOU DIDNT EVEN ADD STABILIZATION

Take a 500 dollar lens and throw in AL-2 and IS and it is suddenly 1299-1799!

whoa, let's not oversimplify things.  the glass in this by far exceeds the glass you're getting in the $500 consumer 70-300 zooms.  take a look at the MTF charts.  or even take a look at real world images taken by a canon 70-300 non-L and compare it to something shot on a 70-200 L series lens.  that's the expected difference in image quality.

weathersealing is a big deal too and definitely worth a significant premium on a lens.  when I first saw this, I was scratching my head over the price, but after thinking about it and seeing what others have to say about it, I think this is actually a really well-priced variable aperture L-series zoom.

[kubelik]

supa, it's not like canon's ending the consumer-level 70-300's.  I think the point is pretty clear -- if you think those are good enough for your uses, buy them.  plenty of people have, and plenty of people will continue to do so.  if somebody wants to shell out $1500 for a weathersealed, high IQ 70-300, then they have something to spend their dough on.  everybody goes home happy.  that's what you do in business, find a market, and then deliver a product that captures that market.

I think most people buying L glass are focusing on both image quality, and quality images.  I find it hard to imagine anyone spending that much money on a hobby, and then not taking it seriously.  I'll speak for myself as an L-glass owner, but I think the same goes for lots of others out there: sure, I don't think I create images that deserve to be called "great photography".  but that doesn't mean I'm not trying.  truly great photography doesn't come easy (and shouldn't come easy, otherwise, whats so great about it?).  but it doesn't mean we can't all aspire to great photography.

[neuroanatomist]

supa, it's not like canon's ending the consumer-level 70-300's.

Not so sure on this one.  It seems that the 100mm non-L Macro was discontinued after the release of the L version (it is still listed on the Canon USA site, presumably because Canon USA has stock remaining, but many other country-specific websites have it moved to the discontinued section).  Maybe there's some truth to the rumor that Canon is trending towards offering only L lenses and EF-S lenses - it makes sense given that the cost of FF bodies often correlates with the wherewithal to afford L lenses.

I think most people buying L glass are focusing on both image quality, and quality images.

Agreed. 

[docsmith]

Maybe there's some truth to the rumor that Canon is trending towards offering only L lenses and EF-S lenses - it makes sense given that the cost of FF bodies often correlates with the wherewithal to afford L lenses.
 

Canon currently lists only 1 EF "non-L/non-EFS" general purpose zoom lens.  But then Canon only lists 1 EFS telephoto zoom and 5 EF telephoto zooms.  If you look at the last few years canon has typically released 0 EF "non-L" lenses, ~1 EFS lens, but 3-4 EF "L" lenses per year over the past 5 years.  Just looking at that, it seems that canon is trending toward EFS lenses a little and EF "L" lenses more significantly.

I say this not wanting to sound jaded, as it is sound business, but it is also possible Canon isn't even really trending toward EF-L, EF-S, or EF lenses, but simply making sure they have a lens at every price point for every type of lens.  They've done so with camera bodies, why not lenses?  For example, for the 70-300 tele-zoom, they now have a lens at $200/$600/$1,200/$1,500.  If this is correct, they will keep the EF 28-135 (or something equivalent) around to have an "inexpensive" EF option for a "general purpose" zoom lens.

Just a thought.

[neuroanatomist]

If you look at the last few years canon has typically released 0 EF "non-L" lenses, ~1 EFS lens, but 3-4 EF "L" lenses per year over the past 5 years.  Just looking at that, it seems that canon is trending toward EFS lenses a little and EF "L" lenses more significantly.

It looks like the most recently released EF non-L prime is the 28/1.8, in 1995.  That roughly coincides with the time that zoom lens quality started getting sufficiently good that zooms were seen as useable lenses that could produce good quality.

The most recently released EF non-L zoom appears to be the 70-300/4-5.6 IS, in 2005.  That is the only EF non-L zoom released since the EF-S mount was introduced, and of course the real benefits of EF-S come on the wide end anyway. 

I'm not sure they need a new inexpensive general purpose zoom lens with an EF mount.  In the past, everything was full frame (i.e. film), so with 35mm Rebels available, there needed to be consumer options for lenses, too.  Since there are no 'cheap' consumer-level FF dSLRs, the need for inexpensive EF lenses is not that strong, having been supplanted by the EF-S line.

[docsmith]

I probably shouldn't be trying to sum up canon's entire marketing philosophy in a post.  But I am thinking that instead of gravitating toward EF-S lenses, they are gravitating toward EF-S lenses when a "market" for that lens is created by either a price advantage over an EF lens, or when the 1.6x crop factor comes into play (like needing general purpose zooms that start at 15 mm or 17 mm).  For example, the EFS 55-250 IS sells for about $225 while the EF 70-300 IS sells for ~$600.  Price advantage thus we get an EFS lens.  EF 70-300 non-IS sells for ~$200, no true price advantage, so no EFS lens.

I bring this up as I've seen people express concern that if a new non-L prime was ever released that it would be EFS.  My guess is that it would be EF as they could sell that to both FF and crop sensor users.  I see Canon no longer producing a non-L EF prime only if they determine there is little market for one.  But some 5D owners use  the 35 f2, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, etc.  So I don't think those replacements, if they ever come, will be EFS.

So, in short, I only see EF-S lenses being released when a market is created either due to a technical characteristic of the crop sensors or a price advantage.  So this may be a limited trend toward EF-S, not a complete trend.  Not that Canon is consulting me or anything.

[Flake]

It looks like the most recently released EF non-L prime is the 28/1.8, in 1995. ?

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro was released in 2000 MP-e 65mm released 1999 Don't know if you count Macro as prime especially the 65mm but the 100mm shouldn't be left out, but still 5 years without an EF zoom and 10 without a prime does seem like a long long time.

[Edwin Herdman]

Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures.

If you read between the lines, you'll see that he only uses certain words when they seem warranted.  A soft lens isn't called sharp.  Look at the review of the 50mm f/1.2L - his final opinion seems in line with what I've read elsewhere.

Sure, his methodology does concern me a bit.  Using old lenses on older cameras and not updating will make them appear better compared with new lenses on new cameras (then gain, that's a victory for common sense and budgets).  I also feel a lot of the samples aren't especially useful, but then again the images are shown at a more realistic resolution than pixel peepers like.