July 28, 2014, 02:56:26 AM

Author Topic: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??  (Read 4979 times)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2013, 02:14:29 AM »
Still hoping next year brings a non-weather sealed, lighter, slimmer, and cheaper plastic version of this lens.  Its not just the money, but rather nice to have something smaller and lighter as an alternative that still has excellent optics - like the 55-250 STM for instance.

With the deep discounts they are giving on the EF 70-300 F/4-5.6 non-L, this may just be the plan.

I very highly doubt that would ever happen.  That would at least partially cannibalize the L, if Canon claimed it had the same optics but somehow just in a cheaper plastic unsealed body.  Where did you hear of this plan?  It sounds very bogus to me.  Also unprecedented...the 55-250 would likely already be the lens you are describing...and it is not a watered down version of an L lens.  I'm not aware of Canon ever taking an L lens and releasing a cheaper build version.

I've rented the latest version of the 70-300 non-L, and it was a very fine lens for the money.  You should try one.  It worked great on my crop camera at that time, but I have no idea how it would work on my 6D (likely not too well towards the borders).  If you are using crop cameras only, though, maybe you should check it out?

I owned a 70-300 non-L, the new 55-250 STM totally destroys it in all ways except not having a metal mount. Better image quality across entire focal length, better autofocus, etc.  The 55-250 STM is actually about on par with the 70-300L already.

The problem with the 55-250 STM is it doesnt work on a FF camera.  The 70-300 non-L does, as does the 70-300 DO IS, but both of those have inferior optics compared to the new 70-300L.  IMO, Canon would do well to have a lens that weights less than 1kg and is more compact, while still retaining the image quality.  It definitely is possible as most of the weight and bulk of the 70-300L appears to be due to weather sealing and immaculate build.

What's the weather sealing made out of, mercury?  The sealing does not add to the weight more than a few grams.  The rest of the build, however, obviously does add to it.

Actually looking at the design of the lens I believe the diameter and bulk surrounding the telescoping part of the lens is there partially due to the weather sealing, as I imagine weather sealing a telescoping element of this length is not easy.

I never thought of the added bulk of the diameter of this lens, was due to having weather sealing for the telescoping element.  I suppose some of it could be due to this.  However, it seems like the 24-105, which also has a weather sealed telescoping element, would also need to somehow be huge and heavy, and it is not.  Also, its front filter size is much larger than the 70-300L, at 77mm.  I really think the added bulk of the 70-300L has more to do with the desired rigidity of the lens, the size of its elements, their grouping...and the design/layout of the IS elements.  Frankly at 2.3 pounds it's just not a heavy lens, especially when you consider its length when telescoped, that the elements are high quality, and that there is IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2013, 02:14:29 AM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2013, 02:16:07 AM »
I paid $1,259 for mine.

Thank you, I believe that is near the target price I set.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2013, 02:17:13 AM »
Missed the 1099 and finally got it for 1199 from BH. Fantastic lens. Very good for travel. You will nor regret.

May I ask when?  Thank you very much for replying to this thread :).

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2013, 09:47:15 AM »
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority.  Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me).  As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it).  Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2013, 03:12:07 AM »
I paid c. $1000 for mine, a used copy from lensrentals, in the equivalent of the sale that begins in a couple of hours at lensauthority.  Superb lens, for all the reasons given by others; I don't think I've used my 70-200 f4 L IS since (not because it isn't as good optically, but because the extra 100mm matters to me).  As with all other lenses there may be some dud copies out there (the first one I bought, new, wasn't any better than my 70-300 non-L, so I didn't keep it).  Given how well lensrentals maintains its stock, and the excellence of their customer service, buying used from them seems relatively risk-free.

Perhaps, but it seems like their prices are higher than everyone else's for used gear.  Not to mention the fact that their used gear, is shipped probably 15 to 20 times (or more) to that many different people, before they decide to put it for sale on their used site (it's usually a 2 year period before they offer them for sale).  That's a lot of handling hours on a product.  I would never buy a used item that had been through that many hands and shipped that many times.  I've rented a lot of times from them, and have seen the nicks and wear the lenses get.  The 24-105 lens I rented from them in 2012, was very worn, the telescoping part was quite loose...compared to the essentially new "used" one I bought off Ebay recently (it's very tight).  I definitely do not plan to buy used from them, but there's always a possibility.  I love them as a rental place, and they're fantastic with customer service...They have a used Zeiss 18mm lens for $900 right now, but I've seen them for that price on Ebay as well, and even a bit lower.  Those particular ones probably weren't in any better condition, but I've not really been shopping seriously for one, since I've decided I really must have the 70-300 next (so I can sell two of my other lenses that it would replace).

Ruined

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2013, 02:57:08 AM »
Kinda bummed this one didn't go on sale for BF...

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1085
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2013, 04:05:06 AM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2013, 04:05:06 AM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2013, 12:14:15 AM »
Kinda bummed this one didn't go on sale for BF...

Me also, but maybe it will happen before or after Christmas.  Either that, or there might be some refurbs...

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2013, 12:14:44 AM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.

What country are you in?

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1085
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2013, 12:46:22 AM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.

What country are you in?

The Netherlands
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2013, 12:48:30 AM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.

What country are you in?

The Netherlands

Ahh.  Well at least you have plenty of beautiful women over there!

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1085
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2013, 02:00:36 AM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.

What country are you in?

The Netherlands

Ahh.  Well at least you have plenty of beautiful women over there!
You think so? Unfortunatley not enough in high-tech. So I don't have the pleasure during my 9 hour working day. While I travel about 3 hours a day by car, I am looking more at cars that pass me or I pass them to get a glimp of those beautiful women  ;D
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2013, 03:22:55 PM »
I paid 1179 euro (that is around 1605 US dollar). And that was discount! Now it is around 1350 euro.
If it would be about prices I prefer to live in the US. Live would be 25 to 50% cheaper.

What country are you in?

The Netherlands

Ahh.  Well at least you have plenty of beautiful women over there!
You think so? Unfortunatley not enough in high-tech. So I don't have the pleasure during my 9 hour working day. While I travel about 3 hours a day by car, I am looking more at cars that pass me or I pass them to get a glimp of those beautiful women  ;D

Haha, sounds like fun!  I love cars too; at least they can't reject you, unless of course you don't have a key to open the door and fire up the engine!  Well, the ladies I've seen were pictures on the web, and they didn't have any clothes on.  I assume they're mostly around Amsterdam.  I bet you could make decent money taking their pictures (because somebody sure does take their pictures)!  I mentioned them because I've never seen one of these pictures of a lady from your country, that was not a perfect 10!!  At least my idea of a perfect 10...They also seem like they would be nice people.  The women in my country are mean all too often!  Maybe it's all my fault?  haha...no doubt I'm partly to blame.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2013, 03:22:55 PM »