Lenses Lenses Lenses

drummstikk

EOS 80D
Aug 19, 2010
105
0
match14 said:
I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS
Based on other posts, this may put me in a minority, but I'd seriously consider selling my 70-200 2.8 for a 100-300 4.0. My 70-200 spends a lot of time with the 1.4x on it anyway, and a 100-300 would complement my 24-105 4.0 very well. Performance of the 2.8 zoom with the 1.4x is very good, but I'd love to take it out of the optical path. My rare need for f/2.8 could be met by an occasional rental.

On the supposed 300mm 2.8 replacement: Anybody besides me hoping they do away with the removable tripod collar? That's just a very expensive accident waiting to happen in my opinion. The copy of the current IS-version 300mm 2.8 that I rent locally from time to time has wear on the interior surface of the collar that makes rotation stiff and gritty. That never happened with the original non-IS version of this lens that I forever regret selling.

If anybody ever removes the collar from this lens, can you tell me WHY? Even in the rare instance when I'm not using a monopod with that lens, the tripod mount rests perfectly in my palm and holds the lens barrel just far enough away from my hand for easy fingertip manual focus.
 
S

Sebastian

Guest
muteteh said:
Sebastian said:
muteteh said:
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.
I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum who would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. ;)
Maybe that circular fisheye would have gotten more votes if I had H-IS added, as well as f/1.0 & rounded 8 blades aperture for that shallow DOF with smooth bokeh effect.
Yeah, that would've most likely done the trick. ;)


Regards,

Sebastian
 
S

Sebastian

Guest
drummstikk said:
match14 said:
I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS
Based on other posts, this may put me in a minority, but I'd seriously consider selling my 70-200 2.8 for a 100-300 4.0. My 70-200 spends a lot of time with the 1.4x on it anyway, and a 100-300 would complement my 24-105 4.0 very well. Performance of the 2.8 zoom with the 1.4x is very good, but I'd love to take it out of the optical path.
That's a nice example how different photographers can be. :)
Allthough I do own a 1.4x TC, I've never used since I bought the 100-400. I take the 70-200 f/2.8 whenever shooting in low-light conditions where I'm always happy with every f-stop I can get, so the TC stays off the lens.
And personally, while I'm very happy with the IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I'd grade the combined quality of the 70-200 + TC 1.4x II as "OK", but not as "very good".


Regards,

Sebastian
 
M

MCK

Guest
Sebastian said:
muteteh said:
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.
I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. ;)

muteteh said:
An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.
Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ;)) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.


Regards,

Sebastian


That was a good one ::) still laughing
 
I

Idahophoto

Guest
It seems like Sigma's 120-400 will still be the better way to go. As for the upgrades to the "Big Whites" Make them black. I really hate white colored lenses.
 
G

geohsia

Guest
Sebastian said:
I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. ;)
The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. As for IS on a mid-range lens I used to shoot a lot with Olympus so am used to having IS on everything. Was it always necessary? No. But was nice many times when I just had a bit more headroom for motion. For standard compositions and when you have time to setup I agree IS isn't needed but sometimes when you're moving fast and in a fast paced environment with shifting light sometimes your shutter speed is a little too close to 1/15 or 1/30 and a bit of assistance from IS is helpful. There are also multiple IS modes and it is helpful when doing panning as well. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but certainly is still a useful feature to have. Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries. Also let's not forget that depending on how its done it might also be useful for video.
 
M

muteteh

Guest
geohsia said:
The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ... Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.
Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Now, I could try to influence Canon to keep both lenses in production, but that might hurt me some other way, e.g. in other lenses Canon does not upgrade, say the 1979 Canon FD 7.5mm f/5.6 circular fisheye to an EF 7.5mm f/4 circular fisheye.
 
G

geohsia

Guest
muteteh said:
Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.
Then buy one now. The point is, there is room for the lens to improve. It could be sharper especially wide open. It can be smaller though IS will negate that if added. Regardless if IS is added, the lens should be replaced. Its a good lens if you get a good copy but I don't think really gets the most out of the current bodies.
 
B

bejor

Guest
So... where are the lenses???? I only see P&S Announcements :eek:

By the way... Canon should make it's lenses warranties last longer... 1 year is too short for a $6,000 for example... the other side of the river gives 1+4 in the USA. :-X
 
M

MOT

Guest
Lee Jay said:
Why not? Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8. A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4). If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great. Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.
I agree, and a 100-300/2.8 would be perfect for me. I much prefer Canon's L glass, but have been seriously considering the Sigma 120-300/2.8 because I shoot a lot of really poorly lit nighttime, outdoor rodeos. The 70-200/2.8 is getting me by, but I could really use the extra 100mm on my FF.
 
C

craigkg

Guest
I have been wanting a 100-300mm f/4L IS. I want a zoom that goes beyond 200mm, is constant maximum aperture of f/4 or larger and has image stabilization. I'm come close to pulling the trigger on the 70-200mm f/4L IS a few times, but kept thinking Sigma would probably upgrade their 100-300mm f/4 EX to has OS. I've used the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS several times as a rental, but have never been very impressed and am not fond of the push-pull design. On two of my four rentals, the lens was too soft at the long end and the needs better IS. A 100-300mm f/4 would also be brighter at every focal length than the 100-400mm. A 100-300mm f/4L IS meets perfectly with my wants. If I need a longer focal length, a 1.4x teleconverter can be used or I can rent a long prime. A 300mm f/4L prime doesn't make much sense for my purposes (landscape and wildlife) even though it is good for many sports uses where a 300mm f/2.8L is overkill or too expensive for some.
 
M

match14

Guest
The rumored 16-50 f/4L IS will probably turn out to be a 15-60 f/4L IS.
 

funkboy

6D & a bunch of crazy primes
Jul 28, 2010
473
1
49
elsewhere
Hmmm, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 weighs almost exactly double the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, and is 5cm longer. Granted it has internal focusing, so if the Canon 100-300L has an extending barrel then potentially it could be made shorter.

At the beginning of the EOS story, Canon did have a 100-300 f/5.6L. It was a push/pull design based on the FD version (basically they added an AFD AF motor and some plastic & that was about it). It weighed about the same as the 70-200 f/4L IS (~700g) and was apparently optically excellent from what I can see in the reviews.

Let's hope they can keep the size & weight down with the f/4L IS USM version. With the current trend in their telephotos this like likely, but we'll pay for it...

Now, from a marketing point of view, a 16-50 f/4L IS makes a lot of sense for Canon:

- a lot of people (including me) prefer to invest in FF-compatible lenses even if they use a crop body most of the time, either because they also own an FF body or don't want to rule out the possibility of getting one (or like me, they have a film camera sitting in the closet that might see some use one day...)

- there's a ton of competition in the crop standard zoom f/2.8 IS segment. Some folks buying the Sigma, Tamron, or even the Canon EF-S would be willing to put in a little more cash (or a lot more) to have a weathersealed FF compatible option (basically, to have a proper "L" lens).

- Recent copies of the current 17-40 f/4L are of very high optical quality, but on a crop camera it's an awful lot of money for something with such a short zoom range when there are stabilized f/2.8 competitors for less.
I started out with a 17-40 f/4L, didn't use it much, and traded it towards a 24-105 f/4L when that came out.

If they keep it close to the same size as the 17-40L I think it'll be a winner.
 
D

/dev/null

Guest
You cannot compare a 100-300 f/4 to a 70-200 f/4. If you add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200 f/4, it becomes a 100-280 f/5.6.
Therefore you should compare to a 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x TC, which then behaves like a 100-280 f/4.
In fact, the current 70-200 f/2.8 L is very close in size and weight to the 300 f/4 L prime.
 
M

match14

Guest
funkboy said:
Now, from a marketing point of view, a 16-50 f/4L IS makes a lot of sense for Canon:

- a lot of people (including me) prefer to invest in FF-compatible lenses even if they use a crop body most of the time, either because they also own an FF body or don't want to rule out the possibility of getting one (or like me, they have a film camera sitting in the closet that might see some use one day...)
Which is exactly why it would make more sense to be a 15-60 f/4L IS, on crop it would be a standard zoom (24-96) and on full frame it would be a wide angle zoom.
 
T

that1guy

Guest
muteteh said:
geohsia said:
The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ... Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.
Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Now, I could try to influence Canon to keep both lenses in production, but that might hurt me some other way, e.g. in other lenses Canon does not upgrade, say the 1979 Canon FD 7.5mm f/5.6 circular fisheye to an EF 7.5mm f/4 circular fisheye.
Merry Christmas ;D !
 
M

muteteh

Guest
that1guy said:
muteteh said:
geohsia said:
The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ... Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.
Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Now, I could try to influence Canon to keep both lenses in production, but that might hurt me some other way, e.g. in other lenses Canon does not upgrade, say the 1979 Canon FD 7.5mm f/5.6 circular fisheye to an EF 7.5mm f/4 circular fisheye.
Merry Christmas ;D !
Danke shcoen.

I'm an atheist, so I'll make it a happy winter solstice.
 
P

pazuzu

Guest
Really bummed out that the 24-70 2.8L IS and/or an upgraded version of the 35 1.4L with improved USM wasn't announced. I had high hopes for this latest round of news from Canon. Any idea if they're done with the announcements? Think maybe there's more to come??
 
P

pazuzu

Guest
I just checked the Canon US site and the 24-105 4L IS isn't listed anymore; did that get an upgrade? Anyone have any news on that lens?