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

F

Flake

Guest
not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

The price here is not the issue, it's what accountants call opportunity cost, if you buy this then you don't buy something else. So what's not to love? If this was the only lens at this price point and focal length that might be reasonable, but there's the 70 - 200mm f/4 IS L a legendary performer and a stop faster; it's not far off the cost of an f/2.8 and that's no contest! Then there's the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 which gives another 100mm reach and again excellent performance.

I have a collection of L lenses and all of them are 77mm so I have filters & other things which fit that size, they won't fit a 67mm lens which again makes it less attractive, and there's the 70 - 300mm DO lens about this price, not a great seller, it's a crowded market place and I'm not sure that this lens has got what it's going to take to make it a great seller.
 

kubelik

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
flake, I think you answered your own question. the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.

1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.

but, when you can get the 100-400L for that much ... or the 300 f/4 for less ... or the 70-200 f/4 L IS for less ... or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for just $400 more ... what is there to love about it?

if it came in at $1200 that would be one thing, but taking it into the $1500 range put it up against some fierce competition from its older brothers.

that's what's not to love.
 
R

rrcphoto

Guest
kubelik said:
flake, I think you answered your own question. the thing that is not to love about the lens is precisely its price.

1.5K is not much for a semi-pro to drop on a lens.

but, when you can get the 100-400L for that much ... or the 300 f/4 for less ... or the 70-200 f/4 L IS for less ... or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS for just $400 more ... what is there to love about it?

if it came in at $1200 that would be one thing, but taking it into the $1500 range put it up against some fierce competition from its older brothers.

that's what's not to love.
great .. so let's see .. 100-400 and 300/4 not weather sealed and old IS implementations. do you honestly think an updated 100-400 L would be 1200? given canon's usual price jumps .. think double . .or more if they make it a faster lens.

70-200/4 which this lens has as good of performance MTF wise by for it's entire range ..

70-200 for 400 more? where? considering the 70-200 2.8 II is MSRP 2500 here versus this one at 1500

Not including the TC .. which of course is free, and doesn't weigh a half a pound like canon's 1.4 TC does - and of course doesn't lose any resolving power at all by adding the TC into the equation at all .. right?

if you looked at the MTF's .. performance wise, this lens is as good as any baring the 70-200 2.8 II L

so you have the compromise on aperture for optical quality .. at 1500 that's a compromise.

or would you have rather spent 3,000 to 5,000 on a constant aperture one not including the additional weight of the lens as well?

because you certaintly wouldn't have gotten that for 1.5k ..
 
J

jWeu

Guest
I have an 70-300 IS nonL and will stay with this. I hoped for an 70-280 f/4 L IS (77mm):

70-280 f/4 + ex1.4 III = 100-400 f/5.6 (77mm).

Now I would like to use 70-200 2.8 with an extender 1.4 or 2.

The new lens make economically sense since the non-L 70-300 is no longer available. Should I sell my used zoom for more money I bought it?

I'm still waiting for some MTF of the new combination 70-200 2.8 + ex1.4 III.

P.S.:
I have no idea, why lenses are not build with focal length like ampetures: 50 71 100 141 200 283 400 566 800 1131 ?
The multiplier is always a square root of 2.
 

kubelik

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)

I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens. it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point. an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market
 

traveller

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
neuroanatomist said:
funkboy said:
Somehow I think the slow-selling 70-300 DO is not long for this world...
I disagree. The 70-300mm DO is a niche lens - intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth paying extra (or now, a little less). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.

On the other hand, the new 70-300mm L is only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end. Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm. But not really a faster aperture, and it's still a lousy variable aperture.

But, I will agree that this space is getting crowded - 70-300 IS, 70-300 DO and now a 70-300 L. But, there are 4 70-200mm zooms, so why not 3 70-300mm zooms?

Overall, I'm pretty thoroughly unimpressed by this new lens. I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm. The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical. I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for carrying convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.
Agreed. Too heavy for a travel lens; too expensive for a budget alternative; too short as an alternative to the 100-400L.

All in all, a pretty disappointing set of lenses, unless you have niche interests.
 
R

rrcphoto

Guest
kubelik said:
rrc, good points all around (btw when I mentioned 70-200 f/2.8 I was talking about the first version, not the II, so that price point isn't incorrect)

I'm pretty sure that these were the same reasons that Canon had when they decided to develop and produce this lens. it definitely has a place in the market and its own niche; my point is that that telephoto range is getting highly competitive even within canon's own ranks, and it is fulfilling a pretty small niche at this point. an updated 100-400 would have been useful for a much larger segment of the market
agreed. I'm liking the "portability" of this as well . it's very compact .. easy to pack into a travel kit.

it's a 400g more than the older 70-300 for sure .. however, it's far far more rugged, same length, simply larger diameter.

if the MTF's hold up to real life .. which they usually do .. then this will be a very very nice lens as a low volume (camera kit wise) lens to carry around - excellent optical quality small form factor. to be honest, the MTF's have me very very surprised .. it then makes it a judgement call .. do i need the 70-200/4 or the 70-300/4-5.6 .. and not sacrificing optical quality going either way.

agreed that the 100-400L needs an update as well, that sucker (literally) kills cameras.. however it starts to get close to that weight where you start to make the call .. do I really need to bring it along sitting at around 1400g versus 1000g and a full 2 inches shorter in your kit to pack.
 
R

rang

Guest
This is stupid.
You have 4 models of L glass at 70-200 with IS
You have an aging L glass variable f/ ratio 100-400 with IS
You have nothing beyond 400 in a zoom tele non prime with IS
You then jump big time to a fixed prime tele beyond 400...the 500, 600and 800 and if you can find or need ...the 1200

Should've made a variable f/ ratio tele L with newer IS at 200-500. 500 seems like the minimum for BIF shooting IMHO.
 

Mark D5 TEAM II

Proud N0ink 0wnz0r / crApple iFruitcake H4t3r
Mar 5, 2013
1,349
89
Tleilax, Thalim Star System
Naaah, makes little sense range-wise and no sense price-wise. 70-200/4 IS has Fluorite and 2 UD elements, this one only has 2 UD elements. Can anyone give a link to the MTF chart? TIA. I really doubt it would equal the IQ of the already legendary 70-200/4 IS without a CaF2 element and a greater FL range to boot (the bigger the zoom range, the lesser the IQ and the greater the distortion). Maybe if this was priced around $1000 this would be a slamdunk, at least for those that still do not own any of the 4 70-200 zooms. I hope the actual street price would go down fast from its MSRP. :p
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,004
1,361
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I've been thinking a lot about this one today. I'm really trying to want this lens. But, at least for now it's just not happening.

I think the problem is that at this price point and features there are just too many other options. I keep circling around and ending back where I started this morning. If it were a constant f4, I'd be thinking "I Want" (Yes, I know it would have been more expensive).

But, now I keep coming up with other lenses in lower or similar price ranges and thinking 'I could buy that for less' or 'If I spent a little more I could get that' or 'maybe I ought to take another look at the old 100-400 zoom' or 'I think I'll wait and see what the third-party manufacturers come up with' (Come on , Tokina when are you going to release that 80-400 stabilized lens?)

I'll probably rent this lens at some point just to try it out.

The nice thing about this forum is we all get to express our opinions (even though everyone else is usually wrong ;) ) Then, ultimately, we'll see what the market actually determines. I'm kind of hoping it doesn't do so well and Canon slashes the price. But, I doubt we'll see that.
 
C

Canon 14-24

Guest
/dev/null said:
Canon 14-24 said:
I'd rather get a 70-200 2.8 II with 1.4x III over this.
....at twice the price.
I'd get a used one off my local CL for $2-2.1k, so not nearly twice the price, however without the 1.4x extender the $500 difference on the lenses alone I just cannot justify.
 

Isurus

EOS T7i
Jul 21, 2010
76
0
ELK said:
If 70-200 F/4 L IS with Extender EF 1.4x III will still be cheaper than 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS then the pricing of this tele is not very justified.
This. I can't for the life of me make any sense of this lens. And $1500? How exactly is this an "affordable" lens? Strange.
 
S

sswx2187

Guest
I'm new to this whole thing and I was just about to feel like I made the wrong decisions with my lens choices.. but after seeing all this.. I have a 10-22, 50, 70-300 IS.. I paid slightly over 500 for the 70-300.. despite that fact that I'd have to agree its obviously slow and it does lack image quality.. it has at least 1 ud element.. for a third of the cost of having 2? Come on Canon....
 
M

muteteh

Guest
My impression is that Canon is making a clear cut between APS-C and FF:

APS-C with EF-S lenses covering ultra wide EF-S 10-22mm to tele EF-S 55-250mm for those who want affordable cameras.

FF with L lenses for those can pay the price.

In between there are about 10 cheap EF primes [*]. I think Canon makes those because sales already covered the initial expenses (design, manufacturing facilities, etc), and now every lens sold contributes directly to the bottom line, and some of those are good lenses selling well. My bet is on Canon killing those in the next few years, e.g. starting with new 20mm f/1.4 L & 28mm f/1.4L to discontinue the three non-L primes on those focal lengthes.


[*] EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8 & f/2.8, EF 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4 + f/2.5 macro, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.8 with softfocus.
 
E

ELK

Guest
nicke said:
Found a great page with info about the new lens, http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3512.

Cheers,
Nicke
Nice article. Canon pioneered here and pushed the limits of affordable lens - now it starts from $1500. And this sentence is simply brilliant:
"The beauty of this lens is that it does nearly everything better than less-expensive alternatives. "
People of Earth should be grateful that Canon managed to create something expensive, BUT better than the cheap ones. Seem like other companies have quite different approach - their expensive lenses are considerably worse than their cheap alternatives.
 
E

ELK

Guest
muteteh said:
My impression is that Canon is making a clear cut between APS-C and FF:

APS-C with EF-S lenses covering ultra wide EF-S 10-22mm to tele EF-S 55-250mm for those who want affordable cameras.

FF with L lenses for those can pay the price.

In between there are about 10 cheap EF primes [*]. I think Canon makes those because sales already covered the initial expenses (design, manufacturing facilities, etc), and now every lens sold contributes directly to the bottom line, and some of those are good lenses selling well. My bet is on Canon killing those in the next few years, e.g. starting with new 20mm f/1.4 L & 28mm f/1.4L to discontinue the three non-L primes on those focal lengthes.


[*] EF 20mm f/2.8, EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/1.8 & f/2.8, EF 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4 + f/2.5 macro, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.8 with softfocus.
Looks like. CR guy mentioned already some time ago that Canon possibly will produce only L-grade FF lenses.
 

kubelik

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
ELK, I know the rumor you are talking about. at the time I think everyone sort of gave a nervous laugh and shrugged it off. what muteteh and I are thinking now is that rumor was actual solid info ... it's an interesting way for canon to develop its market segmentation, and actually I don't know that I mind it so much.

I do hope they replace some of the cheaper wide angle primes with "budget" L glass, stuff that sits below the $1000 mark. shouldn't be hard, the 135 f/2 L and 200 f/2.8 L both are around that price point, and I wouldn't mind paying $700-800 or so for, say, a 28 f/2 L or a 24 f/2.8 L if the image quality is there.