A New Full Frame Zoom Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[pierlux]

...
I agree, I still find this decision confusing. I guess canon figures most people who buy it aren't going to miss it but those who do want it will pay out the a$$ for it.

It's not confusing at all.

The 70-300 IS USM is of very limited benefit on the newer, higher resolution, full frame DSLRs.

I wouldn't own it if someone paid me to have it.

??? ? He's talking about the optional tripod ring of the 70-300 L, what do the 70-300 non-L and 5Ds/sr have to do with a tripod collar?

 

[TeT]

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IV. Perfect pairing with a 5DIV.

Funny, but NOT Funny...

 

[Don Haines]

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).

Why? The Tamron lens is cheaper than what is being speculated here.

The Tamron 70-300 DI LD F4-5.6 sells around here for $230......
The Tamron 70-300 DI VC F4-5.6 sells around here for $500......
The Canon 75-300 F4-5.6 AF sells around here for $280......
The Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS sells around here for $500...... normally $650....

I could see Canon updating either lens..... and since they already cost more than the Tamron, and it is a safe bet that an updated lens will cost more than it's predecessor, so my bet is that the new Canon lens will be an update of the IS version, and that it will sell for about 1.5 times the cost of the equivalent Tamron, so that means somewhere around $750 here in Canada.... and no, it will almost certainly NOT be optically superior to the Tamron, probably both will be somewhat comparable.....

There is a very narrow "window" of IQ between the Tamron and 70-300L. It will be interesting to see how Canon engineer this lens to be better than the 70-300 IS USM, better than the Tamron 70-300 and not better than the 7-300L. I would not at all be surprised if the IQ of an updated 70-300 IS USM surpasses that of the 70-300L (Sony's recently announced 70-300 does - according to MTF) in order to create a compelling "buy" vs the Tamron lens. FWIW, I've got all three of these 70-300 lenses and the order of "goodness" is IS-USM, DI-VC, L. The purchase of each successive lens (in that order) meant that the one(s) before no longer got used.

Some will buy Canon, Some will buy Tamron, and some will order a pizza.....

With or without anchovies?

If they buy the Tamron, with the money they save they can certainly afford anchovies and with modern materials and coatings, all these lenses are getting pretty darn good!

The first Tamron I bought was the 90mm Macro lens with the adapt-all mount. I thought that was the greatest idea.... just change the mount and you could migrate over to Canon.... or Nikon.... or Olympus... It now has an EF adapt-all plate and works on my 7D2....

I wonder if they could re-introduce the concept with an adaptor base that would allow the data comms from various manufacturers to work.... That would be cool.... Take your Tamron Lens off of your Canon, swap the adaptor, put it on your Sony.... or Nikon... or 4/3rds....

 

[douglaurent]

There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon - starting with standard stabilized f2.8 zooms:

15-30/2.8 IS (Tamron equivalent)
24-70/2.8 IS (Tamron)
150-600 (Sigma / Tamron)

24-240 (Sony equivalent)
28-300 (small size)

11-20/1.8 (Tokina)
18-35/1.8 (Sigma)
50-100/1.8 (Sigma)

Only the 8-15, 11-24 and 100-400 are irreplaceable Canon zoom choices.

The situation with primes also might not look good for Canon if they don't start to come up with stabilized lenses. As good as the 35/1.4 is for example, stabilized f1.8 lenses like coming from Tamron are a better choice now in most scenarios. Coming out with lenses like a 135/1.8 IS would give Canon huge credits. But I fear they will release this lens in the year 2036, 14 years after they release a normal optically improved 135/2 II in the year 2022.

Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses. They don't even recommend a lot of basic old lenses themselves for the 5Ds.

 

[j-nord]

...
I agree, I still find this decision confusing. I guess canon figures most people who buy it aren't going to miss it but those who do want it will pay out the a$$ for it.

It's not confusing at all.

The 70-300 IS USM is of very limited benefit on the newer, higher resolution, full frame DSLRs.

I wouldn't own it if someone paid me to have it.

Talking about the L, not sure what you are on about.

 

[j-nord]

IMHO, Canon has done the 70-300mm range to death, and the non-L version would not be upgraded before the L version.

The 70-300L is a recent release, it won't be upgraded anytime soon.

It also doesn't need an upgrade. Its about as good as it can get for the price range, similar quality and sharpness as the 100-400ii.

Except that Sony's recently announced 70-300 zoom will be ~$100 cheaper and offer better IQ.

Good for them, glad to see sony is finally making competitive glass. Canon isn't competing with Sony, Sony is competing with Canon. Sony has to try to sell more for less to gain market share. $3k for a sony 70-200 f2.8 certainly isnt going to compete with the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS ii so they have to use a more consumer oriented lens (possibly with near zero profit) to attract new customers.

 

[Maximilian]

... The only lens that we can think of would be a replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. ...

Seems reasonable. This Lens is optically behinde the Tamron since about almost ten years an much more expensive (420 vs. 300 EUR). I was really wondering how Canon could keep holding on this one so long.
I hope they do the release very soon and then give us some primes as there are also some parts beeing ready for replacement for a long time

 

[hkenneth]

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).

Why? The Tamron lens is cheaper than what is being speculated here.

The price of the Tamron and the current Canon non-L is almost the same. I purchased the Tamron mainly because the Canon 70-300mm non-L is so incompetent and the price of the L is out of my budget + a little bit heavy for my daily hiking purpose.

 

[symmar22]

There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon - starting with standard stabilized f2.8 zooms:

15-30/2.8 IS (Tamron equivalent)
24-70/2.8 IS (Tamron)
150-600 (Sigma / Tamron)

24-240 (Sony equivalent)
28-300 (small size)

11-20/1.8 (Tokina)
18-35/1.8 (Sigma)
50-100/1.8 (Sigma)

Only the 8-15, 11-24 and 100-400 are irreplaceable Canon zoom choices.

The situation with primes also might not look good for Canon if they don't start to come up with stabilized lenses. As good as the 35/1.4 is for example, stabilized f1.8 lenses like coming from Tamron are a better choice now in most scenarios. Coming out with lenses like a 135/1.8 IS would give Canon huge credits. But I fear they will release this lens in the year 2036, 14 years after they release a normal optically improved 135/2 II in the year 2022.

Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses. They don't even recommend a lot of basic old lenses themselves for the 5Ds.

Agreed, and we are not talking about the prehistoric primes queuing up for complete redesign :

20 f2.8 USM - 1992
28 f1.8 USM - 1995
50 f2.5 CM - 1987
50 f1.4 USM - 1993
85 f1.8 USM - 1992
100 f2 USM - 1991

45 f2.8 TS-E - 1991
90 f2.8 TS-E - 1991

 

[wsmith96]

EF 70-300mm STM costing US$600.
A perfect match for the 24-105mm STM.

+1

 

[wsmith96]

I agree that the 70-300 is a ripe target here. If Canon really wants to make it a worthwhile upgrade, it will get the new Nano USM motor, a nonrotating front filter ring, and accept the new PZ-E1 power zoom adapter.

Just means I need to unload my 70-300 ASAP...

Good luck unloading it. I've tried to sell mine for over a year and no one wants one in my area.

 

[AvTvM]

"Canon will eventually launch new lenses" [CR2] ... ridiculous!

 

[Ozarker]

I just purchased a Tamron 70-300mm last month... If this lens is indeed 70-300mm with better IQ I'm gonna be pissed (although I feel it is very likely true).

Pissed? Why? ???

 

[neuroanatomist]

There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon

Why do you suppose there are 3rd party lenses for which Canon has no equivalent? Perhaps returning to the basics will help...

OEM has the upper hand, 3rd parties need to offer something else – different features or lower cost. To paraphrase j-nord, Canon isn't competing with 3rd party lens makers, those makers are competing with Canon.

Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses.

...or...they're doomed? :

 

[douglaurent]

It can be annoying if manufacturers do update products every 12 months. But in the fast times we are in, Canon doing necessary updates of lenses only every 7-30 years is ridiculous.

A 24-70/2.8 IS for example is not an exotic lens where it won't matter if it is released 5 years later or not at all, especially when Tamron did show how it works.

By the way Canon does have the financial problem not making money they easily could have made. The users have no problem and all the alternatives, and spend their money elsewhere.

Smartphone cameras will become even better, and Sony will implement all the last DSLR advantages in their mirrorless A9 lineup. Already in 2017 most people will ask themselves why they should buy any Canon DSLR anymore. So the lens business should be even more important to Canon, as they at least could sell a lot of updated lenses to the many existing Canon DSLR owners. I have no clue why Canon keeps the slow release pace of the last millennium.

 

[Ladislav]

It can be annoying if manufacturers do update products every 12 months. But in the fast times we are in, Canon doing necessary updates of lenses only every 7-30 years is ridiculous.

Isn't it about manufacturing capacity? Considering history of Canon releases it shows a release pattern. They can only release certain amount of lenses which they actually get to the market. As already pointed before - Canon doesn't need to offer every single lens 3rd party manufacturers offer - it is probably even not achievable.

I would also love to see 24-70/2.8 L IS but so far I can only dream about it ... 50/2 L IS Macro would be another dream.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Already in 2017 most people will ask themselves why they should buy any Canon DSLR anymore.

Oh, really? Most people? As I said, YAPODFC. : : :

 

[ecka]

EF 100-300mm F4 IS USM, please :

 

[jeffa4444]

There are now 8 (!) very useful types of zooms that are only built by third party manufacturers, and Canon needs answers soon

Why do you suppose there are 3rd party lenses for which Canon has no equivalent? Perhaps returning to the basics will help...

OEM has the upper hand, 3rd parties need to offer something else – different features or lower cost. To paraphrase j-nord, Canon isn't competing with 3rd party lens makers, those makers are competing with Canon.

Canon needs to come up with LOTS of refreshed, up to date lenses.

...or...they're doomed? :

I would add to this in fixed primes Canon cover everything from 14mm to 800mm, in zooms everything from 8mm to 400mm + 1.4 extender and in macros 50 to 180mm. Yes the list of recommended lenses for the 5DS / 5DSr are limited but you can still use ANY FF lens with these cameras including all the discontinued EF lenses.

 

[CapturingLight]

This is a very interesting lens for me. I am a crop shooter. I have been relatively happy with my longest focal length being 135. That being said It would be nice to have a longer lens around for when it is needed. Here are my thoughts on the current options:
55-250STM - Good: Price and Optics Bad: Lousy build quality, EF-S lens, Shortest option
75-300USM - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens, price Bad: Lousy optics
75-300L - Good: Longer zoom range, EF lens Bad: Price, Weight
100-400 - Good: Better still zoom range, EF lens, Optics Bad: Price, Weight
Sigma/Tamron 150-600 - Good: Amazing zoom range, EF lens, Acceptable optics Bad: Weight, Size

In my mind the 55-250,75-300USM,75-300L,100-400 all have enough cons that have kept be from pulling the trigger. I do keep eyeing the 150-600 options but they are huge and heavy but 150-600mm how cool is that. While I agree the 150-600 is a very different lens from a 75-300 they both fit my desire to have coverage for the longer focal lengths. A 75-300 priced right might just be the sweet spot for me.