The price you paid for your 70-300L ??

[CarlTN]

Hello, I'm considering buying one of these 70-300L. Would like to know the new price (in US dollars) that you paid for yours, and when, where...if you would care to share. Also you could share the price you've seen in the past, if you recall, whether you own one of these or not. Apologize if this has already been covered in another thread. I searched and the first 10 didn't seem to discuss price specifically in the topic.

I could be mistaken but I think I saw $1199 over the summer from one of the big retailers like Adorama...not sure about Amazon. That "BigValue" dealer on Ebay might have had it for a similar price. I guess what makes the difference, is if there is a Canon rebate on it at the time or not, but seems like sometimes there is a "sale price" that's suddenly the same as the rebate price, even though it's not an "official rebate". Then perhaps there are those times when the price drops even below that.

I am coming to realize this lens could replace two of my others, more or less, and might do as good or better of a job as either of them...so I'm pretty sure I want one.

 

[Eldar]

I got mine for USD1.000, second hand, mint condition. It´s a really nice lens, with much better performance than many seem to think.

 

[boogaloo]

I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).

I have also just bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter that I really hope would work with this lens (I believe the Canon ones won't).

I tend to buy most of my stuff from DigitalRev, which sho1ws the 70-300 at being 869 with their current offer (that's 1393USD).

 

[kirkcha]

I bought mine for $1,399 (after $200 rebate) in July from B&H. If I recall it was a little cheaper in the beginning of the year but was buying other stuff at the time. I waited as long as I could but figured it wasn't going to get any cheaper in the summer and needed it for vacation. Price went up 2 weeks later.

I had also bought a refurb from Canon (I think $1,150 at the time) but had an issue with the AFMA and decided to return and buy new. Love this lens, no regrets about price here. Great for travel.

 

[skullyspice]

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.

 

[Ruined]

I'm increasingly thinking that this might be my next lens choice too, though I have got a bit daft and jittery about whether the 'slew' of new lenses next year might include a rework of this (though having followed the debate around that it looks unlikely and - yes, I know - no lens is real until it's real).

I believe we will not see an update of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L for many, many years. What you see now is going to be as good as it gets for a long time, simply because it is fantastic.

BUT, what you might see is a midrange, similar IQ, but much lower build quality version of this lens in a replacement of the dated 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM; the current non-L 70-300 IS USM has worse image quality & autofocus than the $349 55-250 STM and has been on many super sales recently together with the old 55-250 non-STM. This leads me to believe we will see a new version of the 70-300 non-L probably in 2014, and my guess is that it will be around $1k street.

If that does come to fruition, then the decision would likely be would you rather have the higher build quality, weathersealing, size, weight, and price of the L - or the lower build quality, size, weight and price of the updated non-L.

 

[Vivid Color]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

 

[Click]

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.

Great shot skullyspice. 8) Very sharp.

 

[skullyspice]

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.

Great shot skullyspice. 8) Very sharp.

Thanks Click!

 

[Casey]

I bought a refurbished one from Canon on sale at 20%off for $1,030.00. They were out of stock but I kept checking until they had one available and grabbed it. I love the lens.

 

[CarlTN]

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.

Impressive! Yes, after watching a video shot with the lens, I decided the bokeh was pretty spectacular on it.

 

[CarlTN]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Thanks very much...brand new for $1099 seems too good to be true, but I will happily take your word for it. Did that include a "giftcard" rebate that was only usable at places you don't ever want to buy stuff from?

 

[CarlTN]

I got mine from B&H in the summer and it was a little bit cheaper than it is now, I would have to look up my receipt for the actual. It is an amazing lens at any price tho. super sharp and beautiful bokeh. I hate to take it off my camera. I shot this hummingbird handheld a couple weeks ago, jpeg with very little post if any.

Great shot skullyspice. 8) Very sharp.

Thanks Click!

In the voice of Kiff from an episode of "Futurama" where he's trying to talk to Amy...."um...uh...um...is......is that your girlfriend in the picture??? Whasss....whoossss...ahhh...SMISMARRRR!!" :-D

 

[Random Orbits]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale. I was surprised that it went as low as it did. I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages. Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer. Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II. It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II. A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines. It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8. For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

 

[CarlTN]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale. I was surprised that it went as low as it did. I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages. Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer. Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II. It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II. A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines. It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8. For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

It's not really fair to compare those two lenses, they're at different sizes/weights, price points, and are meant to do different things. A 4x plus zoom range, compact size, value price...along with the image quality (of the 70-300L), are what is hard to beat...frankly impossible to beat, by anything else in my opinion. If the AF turns out to be slower than my 70-200 f/4, I will be surprised. If it's as fast as it on my 6D, then that is plenty fast enough for me...lightning fast really. Time will tell.

 

[Random Orbits]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale. I was surprised that it went as low as it did. I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages. Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer. Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II. It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II. A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines. It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8. For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

It's not really fair to compare those two lenses, they're at different sizes/weights, price points, and are meant to do different things. A 4x plus zoom range, compact size, value price...along with the image quality (of the 70-300L), are what is hard to beat...frankly impossible to beat, by anything else in my opinion. If the AF turns out to be slower than my 70-200 f/4, I will be surprised. If it's as fast as it on my 6D, then that is plenty fast enough for me...lightning fast really. Time will tell.

Yes, it is fair to compare those two lenses because there have been many threads of 70-300L vs. 70-200L, and most people can't afford to own both. I've never used a 70-200L f/4, so I don't know how it compares with the 70-300L. I own both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L; I use them both. I was assuming that the 70-300L would be your only lens in this focal length range based on your original post, so I was giving some pros and cons versus another lens that is commonly considered. Evaluate others' experience and opinions as you wish -- it's your money and your decision.

 

[CarlTN]

I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale. I was surprised that it went as low as it did. I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages. Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer. Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II. It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II. A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines. It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8. For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

It's not really fair to compare those two lenses, they're at different sizes/weights, price points, and are meant to do different things. A 4x plus zoom range, compact size, value price...along with the image quality (of the 70-300L), are what is hard to beat...frankly impossible to beat, by anything else in my opinion. If the AF turns out to be slower than my 70-200 f/4, I will be surprised. If it's as fast as it on my 6D, then that is plenty fast enough for me...lightning fast really. Time will tell.

Yes, it is fair to compare those two lenses because there have been many threads of 70-300L vs. 70-200L, and most people can't afford to own both. I've never used a 70-200L f/4, so I don't know how it compares with the 70-300L. I own both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L; I use them both. I was assuming that the 70-300L would be your only lens in this focal length range based on your original post, so I was giving some pros and cons versus another lens that is commonly considered. Evaluate others' experience and opinions as you wish -- it's your money and your decision.

I disagree, but thank you very much for the advice. To restate, time will tell. I'm definitely not going to pay $1399...so it might be a while before I buy one. Also don't much fell the need to rent one. I have a feeling it will perform how I need it to. I don't ever plan on buying a 70-200 f/2.8, especially not for over $2k. Might buy a Tamron, but don't feel the need for an f/2.8 zoom. I prefer fast primes within that range, when I need a fast aperture. A 120-300 f/2.8 would be worth owning though, I think. Again though, I don't really need one at this time.

 

[Ruined]

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.

 

[CarlTN]

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?

 

[Ruined]

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.