A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[AvTvM]

Are you going to give every Rebel buyer who wants a telephoto zoom the extra $100-120 they need to pay for the 55-250 STM over the 75-300 lenses, to keep them from being 'shafted with a very poor 75-300 FF'. Or do you think $100 is a trivial amount of money for most people?

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

Where I live Amazon germany has currently (one of the) lowest prices for both lenses:
EF-S 55-250 - € 169 with free delivery
https://www.amazon.de/Canon-Tele-Zoomobjektiv-EF-S-55-250mm-Filtergewinde/dp/B00EP71ETU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464205199&sr=8-1&keywords=ef-s+55-250+stm

EF 75-300 III - € 179 with free delivery
https://www.amazon.de/Canon-75-300-4-5-6-Objektiv-Filtergewinde/dp/B00004THCZ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1464205021&sr=8-2&keywords=ef+75-300

And yes, I would save the € 10 Euro towards a thirdparty lens hood.

PS: 55-250 IS STM is listed as "Nr 1" bestseller at amazon.de ... since you always love to quote those amazon sals statistics. 75-300 has ... no sales rank.

So I repeat: anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted.

 

[neuroanatomist]

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

 

[AvTvM]

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

1. Even USD 299 is excellent value for the 55-250 IS STM.
2. USD 179 for the trashy 75-300 III is a rip-off.
'nuff said.

 

[Mikehit]

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

1. Even USD 299 is excellent value for the 55-250 IS STM.
2. USD 179 for the trashy 75-300 III is a rip-off.
'nuff said.

Cameras are now commoditised and it is all down to cash with the buyer knowing that whatever they buy will do them well. So 100bucks is 100bucks and that can heavily influence the decision of a first-time buyer and once they are into the products of a competitor you will rarely pull them back. But the criticisms of the lens mentioned to you by others are critcisms from people who are interested in improving image quality: the fact is they are in the minority as I commented earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand what you say about the 50-250 being a very good lens in itself and I fully appreciate your criticisms of the 70-300. I even agree with your comments that it makes sense (to me and you) that the customer should pay a little more to get better quality. But Canon clearly disagree with you as to whether it has a place (and a role) in its equipment line-up, and if it didn't sell they would not be on the third iteration of the lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But Canon clearly disagree with you as to whether it has a place (and a role) in its equipment line-up, and if it didn't sell they would not be on the third iteration of the lens.

All well and good, but AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money. :

 

[pierlux]

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

1. Even USD 299 is excellent value for the 55-250 IS STM.
2. USD 179 for the trashy 75-300 III is a rip-off.
'nuff said.

Relax , and thank God you don't need a Lens Hood ET-155WII: it's $ 700 at B&H, $ 880 ( 0 !!!!!) + $ 96 for the lens cap at the Canon store. Better take care of your hood if you have a big big white...

 

[haggie]

I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts.
So I do not wish to give the impression I do not respect his experience on ‘Canon matters’.

But in several replies in this thread by neuroanatomist, I read a cynical attitude towards anybody that brings in arguments that lead to conclusions that he does not agree with.

So far in this thread, several people have brought in arguments that it may not be Canon’s best interest to continue to sell the present 70-300 non-L lens for much longer. It simply is not good enough to meet modern wishes – wishes that have become higher over the recent years partly thanks to Canon’s own innovation like speedier AF (e.g. STM and recently nano-USM) and better image quality (e.g. 55-250 STM compared to 70-300 non-L ).

The point several people are making, is that given these development in consumers , the customers are not helped with Canon pushing forward with the old EF 70-300 non-L.

But in addition it is also argued that Canon is not helping itself doing so. Because it can be argued that it is not in Canon’s best interest to orchestrate the disappointment in its own customers.
In short: Canon may be ‘getting away’ with continuing to sell the 10-years old 70-300 non-L for over € 400. But once Canon cashed this no doubt high profit, many of the customers will lean that spending less money on the cheaper 55-250 STM would have gotten them faster AF and better image quality. Not to speak of those that have a FF body and are confronted with the terrible image quality of the present EF 70-300 non-L.

As a result of Canon's own marketing, particularly starting customers wanting to spend a bit more money, walk into the trap of buying the old EF 70-300 non-L instead of the faster and better 55-250 STM.
And this is the cause of resentment with some customers towards Canon as a whole, as I have personally witnessed in the 3 different cases I described in an earlier reply on page 5.

AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money”.

And don’t give me the “good images are possible with this lens”, because not only the metrics but also practical experiences of the EF 70-300 non-L tell you that it is only suitable for almost stationary subjects and should not be used above 200 mm, especially on a FF body.

And also the “if you want something better, buy an L-lens” is missing the point completely.

P.S.
And as far as the 75-300 is concerned, that is a toy lens of which anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up.
Because Canon on it’s own web page for the EF-70-300 non-L writes “Compared to the original Canon EF 75-300mm IS zoom lens, this telephoto lens has faster autofocus, and overall the lens is lighter and has a smaller diameter than the original.”, only very first beginners with a tight budget will buy that 75-300.
Good for them, because it may help them ‘grow’ into photography. And good for Canon, because doing so they keep some money away from the competition.

But the 75-300 was not the start of this thread. The rumor for a new and better and faster 70-300 non-L was !
And several poster argued that a replacement for the EF 70-300 non-L is long over due.

 

[Labdoc]

I will probably buy the new 70-300 non l when it comes out. I own the old version, bought it six years ago for a crop frame camera and although the IQ isn't the best, it suited my purpose. I can afford the L version, and have the 100-400 II but I what I need is a decent, lighter weight smaller tele to take to my kid's football game, walk around town or some similar event. If I want to get out the tripod, get serious and contend with a big heavy lens, the 100-400 is good for that. Take out the big guns at a school event and you are the crazy camera dad, the kids cringe with embarrassment and the extra effort it takes to do it, interferes with enjoying the game IMO.

Will be moving up to full frame soon and wouldn't use the lens for that format for obvious reasons but if the new version gets rid of some of the issues will definitely be interested. Already have a friend with a rebel who wants to buy the old lens.

 

[Don Haines]

The lowest price lens in the Canon lineup was the nifty fifty..... and it saw an update. Upgrades and updates are not the exclusive property of "L" lenses.... Materials and manufacturing accuracy have come a long way in the last 10 years and a "budget" lens of modern design rivals quality lenses of 20 years ago.....

There is absolutely no reason why the 75-300 could not get an upgrade. The quality is poor and a newer version could be a better lens, yet still say in the same price range. Yes, by modern standards, it is an embarrassingly poor lens..... all this really says is that the update is long overdue.

Is it a good seller? Yes! Do most people realize the poor quality? Probably not! Does any of this matter to us enthusiasts? NO! ........ so why so much noise?

The 70-300 non-L?
Most of the above applies, except at the price level you would expect a better lens. The lens IQ is poor, AF is slow, an upgrade is needed. Period!

 

[Mikehit]

AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money”.

But that is key to it all.
Canon see value in continuing to sell it. They see value of this lens in its line-up. They do an immense amount of market research, they visit and revisit their production values and their research/manufacturing priorities - anyone who has worked with a Japanese company know how much background goes into getting their products how they want them. The 70-300 USM would not still be in production if it was the embarassment that some are making out.
This is not to deny that an update would benefit the consumer. Nor does it deny there is space to expand while leaving the L version to its own space. But if you look at how the 75-300 has had 3 iterations while the 70-300 is still in its original form, that speaks volumes as to how they view the 70-300.

So yes, in saying that the 70-300 USM should have already have been scrapped because it is an embarassment to the Canon name does suggest they believe they know the camera market strategy better than Canon.
And to talk about conning the customer also does a disservice to the customer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts.
So I do not wish to give the impression I do not respect his experience on ‘Canon matters’.

But in several replies in this thread by neuroanatomist, I read a cynical attitude towards anybody that brings in arguments that lead to conclusions that he does not agree with.

So far in this thread, several people have brought in arguments that it may not be Canon’s best interest to continue to sell the present 70-300 non-L lens for much longer. It simply is not good enough to meet modern wishes – wishes that have become higher over the recent years partly thanks to Canon’s own innovation like speedier AF (e.g. STM and recently nano-USM) and better image quality (e.g. 55-250 STM compared to 70-300 non-L ).

...

AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money”.

P.S.
And as far as the 75-300 is concerned, that is a toy lens of which anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up.

With respect, I think you are conflating replies. I have not, in this thread prior to this post, even mentioned the 70-300mm IS non-L lens. So, please do not suggest (as your post goes on to state) that I am somehow arguing against an update to that lens.

I have been discussing the 75-300mm lens – a 'cheap' lens that meets the needs of many people. I definitely respond with cynicism and derision to comments from posters that amount to, 'this lens is trash and Canon shouldn't make it' when it clearly serves a need in the consumer market, a need which you acknowledge. Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention. It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,").

I know from your prior posting here that the 70-300mm lens is of high interest to you, but you are also clearly aware of the fact that the 75-300mm is a quite different lens and value proposition. In this case, it appears you are seeing my previous statements about the latter optic through the lens (pun intended) of your own interest in the former optic.

 

[j-nord]

I am quite new to his forum and I see that neuroanatomist has many ….. many posts.
So I do not wish to give the impression I do not respect his experience on ‘Canon matters’.

But in several replies in this thread by neuroanatomist, I read a cynical attitude towards anybody that brings in arguments that lead to conclusions that he does not agree with.

So far in this thread, several people have brought in arguments that it may not be Canon’s best interest to continue to sell the present 70-300 non-L lens for much longer. It simply is not good enough to meet modern wishes – wishes that have become higher over the recent years partly thanks to Canon’s own innovation like speedier AF (e.g. STM and recently nano-USM) and better image quality (e.g. 55-250 STM compared to 70-300 non-L ).

...

AvTvM, kphoto99 and me are among those who bring in these arguments against continuing the EF 70-300 non-L, although with different words and from different perspective. And the honest opinions and valid arguments that are brought up by them are not to be ridiculed with cynical remarks like “… AvTvM seems to firmly believe that he knows better than Canon how to make and sell cameras and lenses. Apparently he also knows better than consumers worldwide how they should spend their money”.

P.S.
And as far as the 75-300 is concerned, that is a toy lens of which anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up.

With respect, I think you are conflating replies. I have not, in this thread prior to this post, even mentioned the 70-300mm IS non-L lens. So, please do not suggest (as your post goes on to state) that I am somehow arguing against an update to that lens.

I have been discussing the 75-300mm lens – a 'cheap' lens that meets the needs of many people. I definitely respond with cynicism and derision to comments from posters that amount to, 'this lens is trash and Canon shouldn't make it' when it clearly serves a need in the consumer market, a need which you acknowledge. Even moreso when such comments come from posters with a long history on these boards of predicting doom for Canon if they don't follow the path suggested by that particular poster – which is a patently ridiculous contention. It seems that you are suggesting a statement like, "Anyone with an APS-C Canon camera being tricked into buying the trashy 75-300 III today rather than 55-250 is being shafted," is a 'valid argument' (and then you go on to refute it, stating, "anybody can see its role in Canon’s line-up,").

I know from your prior posting here that the 70-300mm lens is of high interest to you, but you are also clearly aware of the fact that the 75-300mm is a quite different lens and value proposition. In this case, it appears you are seeing my previous statements about the latter optic through the lens (pun intended) of your own interest in the former optic.

Haggie, Neuro was talking about the 75-300 not 70-300

 

[AvTvM]

No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"
Probably it is only still sold today, because Canon made a production run of a gazillion copies, half of which are still sitting in some obscure japanese warehouse. That lens - EF 75-300 II - is atrocious, a veritable disaster, an embarassment and a disgrace in 2016. Anybody being tricked into byuing it - rather than EF-S 55-250 STM IS - is being ripped off and cheated. Plain truth.

Funny, how Neuro - Grandmaster of the Canon Defense league - tries to dance around this truth and defend f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits. By now I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.

 

[Mikehit]

No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"
Probably it is only still sold today, because Canon made a production run of a gazillion copies, half of which are still sitting in some obscure japanese warehouse. That lens - EF 75-300 II - is atrocious, a veritable disaster, an embarassment and a disgrace in 2016. Anybody being tricked into byuing it - rather than EF-S 55-250 STM IS - is being ripped off and cheated. Plain truth.

Funny, how Neuro - Grandmaster of the Canon Defense league - tries to dance around this truth and defend f*cking Canon and their f*cking customer cheating habits. By now I honestly believe, the multiple people posting under that Neuro nick (it clearly is more than 1 person!) are all paid by Canon. Any other explanation is less likely.

I somehow feel we are one step away from the camera forum equivalent of Godwin's law.

 

[scyrene]

Either way, let's not put either of those lenses in the same boat as the 85mm f/1.8. Especially the 75-300, that is just plain insulting to the very solid 85mm.

well ... compared to "TODAY'S STANDARDS" = 50 MP sensors ... and in light of Sigma 50, 85 Art and the new Tamron 85/1.8 VC lenses like Canon EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 are rather "trashy" in comparison. Yes, they are about "half price" too ... but.

Of course the EF 75-300 III is in a trash-class of its own ... I'd call it *abysmal*.

1. Only a vanishingly small percentage of photographers are using 50MP sensors. 2. If you're spending £2.5k on a 5Ds(R), you can't really expect a <£250 lens to be the best for it. 3. The EF 50 1.4 is <£250, the Sigma 50 1.4 is nearly £600, the Tamron 45 1.8 is £500.

(Obviously most lenses tend to be upgraded eventually, and it's good when they are, but that's beside the point).

 

[scyrene]

To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread.
So NOT the 75-300 that neuroanatomist mentioned in his reply to that rumor.

AvTvM ‘s reaction above, writing about the present 70-300 non-L, exactly describes what may well be the reason behind the observations I described in my earlier response (page 5 of this thread). But I want to go into these obserations a bit further.

The thing is that the decision makers at Canon may be focused purely on their sales numbers (no doubt high enough, partly due to bundling with other products and cash back actions at strategic times of the year) and profit margins (no doubt very high for a 10-years old lens like the 70-300 non-L). They may, however, not be aware of the effect of these lenses on the “experience” of customers, when these lenses are not what was envisioned by the customer.

On the other hand one has to recognise that sales numbers and profit are what drive a company, so ignoring that and only reasoning from the perspective of a client that wishes "more for less" is strange. But I think that is not what drives the honest responses of most posters on the forum.
And for myself: my point was, to put it more clearly, that there is a big inconsistency between what buyers are made to believe by Canon itself and what they will actually get when buying the present 70-300 non-L.

Today Canon describes the 70-300 non-L as follows on their website: “The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom lens has been developed to meet the high-performance standards that today's photographers demand.”. This is a 10-years old lens, and customers are made to believe it is a modern technology – even “today’s standards”. Most customers have seen technology change almost per-year and this text by Canon gives expectations.

That means that a new or gullible customer, trusting a famous brand like Canon, can get frustrated with Canon after spending around $1,000 on a camera plus tele-zoom that can hardly meet normal AF situations in and around the house and have an image quality that is not good between 200 and 300 mm.

Initially when hearing people with this lens complain about it, I explained that Canon had faster and sharper lenses. I have been using Canon (D)SLR’s for over 30 years and felt I had to explain them. But listening carefully to what they went through, there is no excuse for selling lenses that are carefully marketed as “modern” and using the “Canon” brand, and then have disappointing experiences. Keep in mind that Every word on a site as Canon's is carefully chosen, and even reviewed by many before it is placed.

This effect of selling a lens that will not meet the expectations on people explains why on page 5 I wrote “So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.”.

And not only the people I spoke have that negative experience and emotion about Canon as a result of the present 70-300 non-L. kphoto99 wrote it a bit more black and white: “Many people who start with a first DSLR will end up with crappy lenses and will not continue using the DSLR. In my opinion Canon should not sell any crappy lenses, they are destroying their brand.”. But Canon’s choices achieve exactly that: negative emotion with the customer who spent a lot of money and did not get what was perceived. Mind you, this effect on the customer is the result of Canon itself and not due to the fault of the customer.
And my further point is: that is not without consequences for this customer's future buyings!

Therefore, and I repeat, I really hope that the rumor that started this thread is true about a new EF 70-300 non-L coming pretty soon, assuming it comes with faster AF (e.g. nano-USM) and with noticeably better Image Quality, particularly at the 200-300 mm range (where lenses like these are most often used). Then, even a higher price than topday’s 70-300 non-L is justified, compared to it place between the EF-S 55-250 STM and the EF 70-300 L.

I hope this for myself 8) , many other customers (as is clear from several responses on the board) and also for the good name that Canon has to hold high. And doing so, I am sure, will by no means mean less profit for those only concerned about the business side of Canon.

Meh. I started with the crappiest DSLR and lens combo available at the time, the 300D (an old secondhand copy) and original 18-55mm EF-S. And I was overjoyed. It was so much better than the camera phone I'd been using before (or cheap P&S cameras). My second lens was a Tamron 70-300 with no IS. Now, when I look at the images those lenses produced, I wince. But I loved it and it encouraged me to progress, because it was better than what I'd had before.

The idea that starting at the bottom customers need the best quality in order to keep them upgrading seems utterly wrongheaded to me. If you're satisfied with what your kit can do, why would you spend more on new gear?

 

[scyrene]

well in this case it is 100 € extremely well spent, if that really is the price differential where you live.

1. Even USD 299 is excellent value for the 55-250 IS STM.
2. USD 179 for the trashy 75-300 III is a rip-off.
'nuff said.

Relax , and thank God you don't need a Lens Hood ET-155WII: it's $ 700 at B&H, $ 880 ( 0 !!!!!) + $ 96 for the lens cap at the Canon store. Better take care of your hood if you have a big big white...

Fortunately the big white hoods are essentially indestructible. Carbon fibre, I believe.

 

[Jack Douglas]

To start with, I want to be perfectly clear that I only speak about the EF 70-300 non-L here, because that was mentioned in the initial posting of this thread.
So NOT the 75-300 that neuroanatomist mentioned in his reply to that rumor.

AvTvM ‘s reaction above, writing about the present 70-300 non-L, exactly describes what may well be the reason behind the observations I described in my earlier response (page 5 of this thread). But I want to go into these obserations a bit further.

The thing is that the decision makers at Canon may be focused purely on their sales numbers (no doubt high enough, partly due to bundling with other products and cash back actions at strategic times of the year) and profit margins (no doubt very high for a 10-years old lens like the 70-300 non-L). They may, however, not be aware of the effect of these lenses on the “experience” of customers, when these lenses are not what was envisioned by the customer.

On the other hand one has to recognise that sales numbers and profit are what drive a company, so ignoring that and only reasoning from the perspective of a client that wishes "more for less" is strange. But I think that is not what drives the honest responses of most posters on the forum.
And for myself: my point was, to put it more clearly, that there is a big inconsistency between what buyers are made to believe by Canon itself and what they will actually get when buying the present 70-300 non-L.

Today Canon describes the 70-300 non-L as follows on their website: “The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM telephoto zoom lens has been developed to meet the high-performance standards that today's photographers demand.”. This is a 10-years old lens, and customers are made to believe it is a modern technology – even “today’s standards”. Most customers have seen technology change almost per-year and this text by Canon gives expectations.

That means that a new or gullible customer, trusting a famous brand like Canon, can get frustrated with Canon after spending around $1,000 on a camera plus tele-zoom that can hardly meet normal AF situations in and around the house and have an image quality that is not good between 200 and 300 mm.

Initially when hearing people with this lens complain about it, I explained that Canon had faster and sharper lenses. I have been using Canon (D)SLR’s for over 30 years and felt I had to explain them. But listening carefully to what they went through, there is no excuse for selling lenses that are carefully marketed as “modern” and using the “Canon” brand, and then have disappointing experiences. Keep in mind that Every word on a site as Canon's is carefully chosen, and even reviewed by many before it is placed.

This effect of selling a lens that will not meet the expectations on people explains why on page 5 I wrote “So anybody saying that the 70-300 non-L is fine may be right when talking about a specific subject, e.g. landscape photography (no AF-speed required) - and then in the range between 70 and 200 mm (where IQ is reasonable) - and then also on a cropped camera (where the low border IQ is no issue). But not mentioning that does not do justice to other real-world experiences, in my honest opinion.”.

And not only the people I spoke have that negative experience and emotion about Canon as a result of the present 70-300 non-L. kphoto99 wrote it a bit more black and white: “Many people who start with a first DSLR will end up with crappy lenses and will not continue using the DSLR. In my opinion Canon should not sell any crappy lenses, they are destroying their brand.”. But Canon’s choices achieve exactly that: negative emotion with the customer who spent a lot of money and did not get what was perceived. Mind you, this effect on the customer is the result of Canon itself and not due to the fault of the customer.
And my further point is: that is not without consequences for this customer's future buyings!

Therefore, and I repeat, I really hope that the rumor that started this thread is true about a new EF 70-300 non-L coming pretty soon, assuming it comes with faster AF (e.g. nano-USM) and with noticeably better Image Quality, particularly at the 200-300 mm range (where lenses like these are most often used). Then, even a higher price than topday’s 70-300 non-L is justified, compared to it place between the EF-S 55-250 STM and the EF 70-300 L.

I hope this for myself 8) , many other customers (as is clear from several responses on the board) and also for the good name that Canon has to hold high. And doing so, I am sure, will by no means mean less profit for those only concerned about the business side of Canon.

Meh. I started with the crappiest DSLR and lens combo available at the time, the 300D (an old secondhand copy) and original 18-55mm EF-S. And I was overjoyed. It was so much better than the camera phone I'd been using before (or cheap P&S cameras). My second lens was a Tamron 70-300 with no IS. Now, when I look at the images those lenses produced, I wince. But I loved it and it encouraged me to progress, because it was better than what I'd had before.

The idea that starting at the bottom customers need the best quality in order to keep them upgrading seems utterly wrongheaded to me. If you're satisfied with what your kit can do, why would you spend more on new gear?

Couldn't agree more. For one bird season my Nikon 70-300 provided me with great satisfaction!

And, Neuro's function is primarily to provide me with a regular chuckle and he generally does, so that meets "my needs". I won't claim my sense of humour isn't a little twisted though! Still, I do sometimes have a wee bit of sympathy for some of the recipients.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

No, Canon EF 75-300 II does NOT "meet any market need"

While I will be the first person to jump up beside you and berate the quality of the 75-300, I do see them getting sold. The last time I went into the local camera store, they were having a Canon sale and while I was waiting my turn at the counter I saw a gentleman, and then two ladies, buy a rebel with the 18-55 kit lens and with the camera also get the 75-300 lens.

The clerk explained some of the other lens choices, but in the end the cheapest lens wins. A great many people find the idea of paying the "big bucks" for a 70-200F4 insane..... and the F2.8? ? ? ? FORGET IT!

I disagree with you about the market for such a lens. There is obviously a market because they sell a lot of them.... but that said, it is a truly crappy lens and is in desperate need of an update..... and yes, Canon should be ashamed that they make it.

 

[Jack Douglas]

How about I settle it once and for all. There is a market! Checking out on this thread now.

Jack