Out of pure curiosity, what are the chances Canon might replace the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with a 70-300 f/2.8 IS in a few years when the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is due for a refresh?
70-300 f/2.8 IS
- Thread starter Mitch.Conner
- Start date
Search the net for the 300 2.8 prime and see how big the front element is.
A 70-300 2.8 would require the same front element size and would be even heavier than the 300 prime, as zooms require more elements due to their more complex design.
I'd also say that the chances to see a 70-300 2.8 are really bad.
A 70-300 2.8 would require the same front element size and would be even heavier than the 300 prime, as zooms require more elements due to their more complex design.
I'd also say that the chances to see a 70-300 2.8 are really bad.
Upvote
0
Canon already has their 70-300mm and it's not f2.8
You could just pick up the Sigma? 120-300mm f2.8... not sure if AF is any good. I love my 70-200mm f2.8 II IS even if it's not the "perfect" lens most brand it as being.
I'm not a good enough photographer to require a 70-300mm f2.8 zoom, but I imagine if you are how frustrating the lack of reach is!
You could just pick up the Sigma? 120-300mm f2.8... not sure if AF is any good. I love my 70-200mm f2.8 II IS even if it's not the "perfect" lens most brand it as being.
I'm not a good enough photographer to require a 70-300mm f2.8 zoom, but I imagine if you are how frustrating the lack of reach is!
Upvote
0
Mitch.Conner said:
Replace a $2000 lens with something that would cost more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II at over $6000?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
+1, not only because it would be expensive but heavy, but the 70-300L (4-5.6) and the 70-200L f2.8 have completely different use cases (even though some people might try to juggle with extenders on the 70-200L or get away with shooting portraits with the less expensive 70-300L).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Not sure I follow. Are you saying only enthusiasts with money to burn would buy it? There would be no interest from pros?
Upvote
0
Bennymiata
Canon Rumors Premium
Only the pros that have a strong sherpa on the payroll would carry it.
Personally, I'd love a 1-1000mm F1.0, but my chances of ever finding one would be about zero.
The problem is purely physical.
The longer the focal length and the wider the lens opening, the larger the front (as well as all the others) element has to be, and the longer the zoom range, the physically longer the lens has to be.
Have you checked out the Sigma 120-300 F2.8?
It's really big and heavy, and as such, doesn't sell in big quantities.
Personally, I'd love a 1-1000mm F1.0, but my chances of ever finding one would be about zero.
The problem is purely physical.
The longer the focal length and the wider the lens opening, the larger the front (as well as all the others) element has to be, and the longer the zoom range, the physically longer the lens has to be.
Have you checked out the Sigma 120-300 F2.8?
It's really big and heavy, and as such, doesn't sell in big quantities.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
charlesa said:
Not sure about the physics, Sigma have been making a 120-300 f2.8 for a long while.
I think the 200-400 f4 LIS is a simular price point and weight guide that a 100-300 f2.8 would probably be.
It would be bigger, heavier and more expensive than a prime 300 f2.8.
It can be done, but I doubt that Canon see a market for it. Most pros who use a 300 f2.8 supplement it with a 70-200 f2.8 and a camera in a three or four camera line up. 300mm f2.8 / 70-200 f2.8 / 24-70 f2.8 and or a 16-35 f2.8. Most paparazzi use this combo or variation of it. It's versatile and offers redundancy.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Mitch.Conner said:
I'm sure they'd sell some if they made a 70-300/2.8, but think about your original question:
Mitch.Conner said:
You're asking if Canon might drop a very popular $2000 telezoom from their lineup and replace it with a lens that's likely >50% heavier, >25% bigger, and at >$6K at least 3x the cost. As I said the chances are nil.
If you want to know if there a market for a 70-300/2.8, independent from the 70-200/2.8, that's a different question, and one you didn't ask.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I thought Neuro had answered a trick question with the correct answer.
The question was as logical as this one. The 35mm F/1.4 L is due for an upgrade. What are the chances it will be upgraded to a 50mm F/1.4L?
Upvote
0
Bennymiata said:
Actually I remember reading about an Arab prince who mounted something bigger than that on his yacht, just without the wide angle.
It was even made by Zeiss.
I'm sure if you want one too you could just phone them up and throw a few million dollars at them.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
