70-300L & More

[Canon Rumors]

Hello from Kenya

I’m currently at the Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. Also known as “The Mara”. I’m obviously having a great time and will be here in Kenya for another 9 days or so.

70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

I have one of these lenses with me here in Kenya on Safari. I am working on a review of the lens, it will be a user review like the others.

If I could give you a bit of a hint of what I think about it, I’ve taken less than 10 frames with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and a few hundred with the new 70-300L. It’s not for everything, but it’s been great for a lot of things.

Rumors!

Not much in the way of rumors coming in, a few bits of email in regards to lenses.

One mentions a new focal length for a new tilt shift lens, what that is wasn’t known.

The other mentioned no replacement of the 50 f/1.4 anytime soon. The lens is a big money maker and hits a great price point for most people.

No camera rumors to speak of. Expect things to start picking up in January.

cr

[dnhjr]

How did you get the new 70-300L? I did not think it was out yet. Would love to see some pic's from it, hope you can post some. 

Have fun on your trip.

<p><strong>Hello from Kenya</strong><br />

I’m currently at the Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. Also known as “The Mara”. I’m obviously having a great time and will be here in Kenya for another 9 days or so.</p>
<p><strong>70-300 f/4-5.6L IS</strong><br />

I have one of these lenses with me here in Kenya on Safari. I am working on a review of the lens, it will be a user review like the others.</p>
<p>If I could give you a bit of a hint of what I think about it, I’ve taken less than 10 frames with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and a few hundred with the new 70-300L. It’s not for everything, but it’s been great for a lot of things.</p>
<p><strong>Rumors!</strong><br />

Not much in the way of rumors coming in, a few bits of email in regards to lenses.<strong> </strong></p>
<p>One mentions a new focal length for a new tilt shift lens, what that is wasn’t known.</p>
<p>The other mentioned no replacement of the 50 f/1.4 anytime soon. The lens is a big money maker and hits a great price point for most people.</p>
<p>No camera rumors to speak of. Expect things to start picking up in January.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

[traveller]

Quite a few people have got their's -it depends on what country you're in.  USA (oddly, as they usually get everything first) & UK dealers don't seem to have any in stock, some in continental Europe seem to have had shipments. 

No 50mm f/1.4 replacement? Disappointing, but I guess Canon's view is that you either accept its limitations or shell out for the 50mm f/1.2L.  It would be interesting to hold a poll of Canon Rumors members, who've owned this lens, to see how many have had problems with the AF mechanism jamming.  Other than that problem it seems a pretty adequate lens for the price (I don't own one).  Sure the Nikon and Sigma 50mm f/1.4s are sharper wide open, but they are much newer designs; most of the other manufacturers 50s from the same era seem to perform about the same. 

[canonmonster]

its a great lens, fast auto focus and sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canonmonster/sets/72157625539625212/

[Batman57]

I am from Milan, Italy, and it looks we are lucky here: I got my 70-300L a couple of weeks ago from a CPS store. They told me I have probably been the first one in Italy to get this lens. But now it's becoming available and there are at least a couple of stores and websites which have it. The net price is 1499€ (VAT incl.), so it's equal to 1,970US$, quite expensive, but Canon tends to just keep the amount and change the Currency, so in the USA it should be priced 1,499$ or less...
The lens is superb, very well built and balanced. Optical quality is great. The only remark is about the max aperture: 4-5.6 is not fantastic. But the dimension of this lens allows me to bring it in a "normal" size bag, fitted on a 1D Mk4, together with a 16-35L II fitted on a 5D Mk2. This was not possible with the 100-400, neither with 70-200/2.8. This is  the reasons why I sold them and got this one! I tryed before the 70-300 DO and the 70-300 NON L but the quality was not there...

[felipey]

Do you have an ETA for a completed review on the 70-300L? I'm looking to buy and already reserved a copy at a local store.

[neuroanatomist]

If I could give you a bit of a hint of what I think about it, I’ve taken less than 10 frames with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and a few hundred with the new 70-300L. It’s not for everything, but it’s been great for a lot of things.

This makes absolute sense to me.  On a safari you need all the focal length you can get, and under the bright Kenyan sky the f/5.6 is a non-issue.  But if you had the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the new 70-300mm L, and the 100-400mm, I wonder which would be seeing the most use?  My money would be on the 100-400mm...

[goodmane]

Very dissapointing re:50mm. Canon is making a lot of money, and it should be investing / sinking some of that money into R&D for substantially better cameras and lenses than the competition.

As of the 2010 3rd quarter, Canon has invested 3.2 billion dollars USD into R&D.  Why do you not think this is very much?  since that is pocket change to you, just buy 10% of the Canon stock, and then you can ask them to spend their R&D on your pet projects.  Of course, if it means you might lose a billion or so of your investment to invest in items that do not have a reasonable ROI, you might change your tune.

[unfocused]

have one of these lenses with me here in Kenya on Safari.

I'm anxious to see the pictures. This is a trip I hope to take someday and I wonder if you are finding the focal length of the 70-300 sufficient.

[c.d.embrey]

Very dissapointing re:50mm.

i see myself buying a 24mm f.14 Nikkor, 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in the near future. There are a lot of pros who don't shoot sports, and Canon is neglecting them.

[elmo_2006]

Photos yes and I'm very curious as to what gear was lucky enough to make this trip.   

I'm also wondering if you can provide some details of the trip i.e. booking information as my wife and I and another couple are looking at travelling to Kenya via...

http://www.myescapades.com/travel/destinations/africa/kenya/east_africa_explorer/overview/#overview

If at all possible, please feel free to pm at elmo_2006@hotmail.com.

Thanks and enjoy your stay!

[studio1972]

Very dissapointing re:50mm.

i see myself buying a 24mm f.14 Nikkor, 35mm F1.4 Nikkor and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in the near future. There are a lot of pros who don't shoot sports, and Canon is neglecting them.

They do make a 50mm 1.2 though, and the 35mm and 24mm canon primes are not too shoddy either.

[kubelik]

I'm fairly happy with my 50 f/1.4, no AF problems after microadjustment was applied.  I am curious as to whether or not anyone has used it and the Zeiss 50's as well, and how they compare.  I hear middling things about the Zeiss 50 f/1.4 but good things about the 50 f/2 makro.

debating how much I'm going to miss that full stop of light, and not sure how I feel about the ellipsoid bokeh, though.

[bopie]

I know this isn't the place to ask, but I thought I'd casually inquire; Does anyone have experience with the 24 1.4L being used (on FF) mainly for portraits/candids? Is the shallow depth of field/prime sharpness worth getting the 1.4 over a 24-70 2.8? Last question, does the 24-70 have a shallow enough depth of field at 24mm to blur a background with a person completely in frame?

The reason I want wide portraits is that frankly, I find 50mm (even on FF) to be too tight for a good portion of my situations.

[kubelik]

bopie, I'm actually going to answer your questions backwards since it the answer makes more sense that way.

the 24 f/1.4 can blur a background completely ... but not if you're trying to take an undistorted full-body photo.  for a minimally distorted full length photo, the 1.4 aperture will certainly add a pleasing amount of blur to the background but it will still be pretty obvious as to what the background is.  neither the 1.4 or 2.8 will give you blur at 24mm similar to what you are probably envisioning

most photographers I know using the 24 f/1.4 for portraits use it for environmental portraits, where you are intentionally including the background because it adds a unique sense of time and place to the image.

the 24mm field of view is good for candid photography providing you mean to include lots of activity and environment in your scene.

definitely a little surprised to hear that you are finding 50mm to be "too tight" for a good portion of your situations, especially if you're primarily talking about portrait work.